Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 12 April.

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 April

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Yeo: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of output for manufacturing industry at the latest available date compared with 12 months previously.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): Manufacturing output in the three months to January 1984 is estimated to have been about 3·5 per cent. up on the level of the same period a year earlier.

Mr. Yeo: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary for that good news, but is he aware of the growing concern that that welcome upturn in manufacturing and in other sectors of the economy is not yet leading to any increase in the number of jobs? Therefore, will he consider taking further steps which will directly reduce unemployment?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend will be aware that the abolition of the national insurance surcharge was specifically designed to help in that area. Indeed, I should emphasise to the House that the abolition of the national insurance surcharge has relieved private sector employers of employment costs of about £3 billion a year. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that as a positive contribution to dealing with the problem.

Ms. Clare Short: How does the level of manufacturing output compare with that of 1979? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the people of the west midlands when the Government aim to return them to the levels of output and employment of 1979?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Lady will be aware that the GDP average is now above the 1979 peak. She will also be aware of the dramatic increase in manufacturing exports over the past three months.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that at long last there is a real sign of a recovery in midlands industry and that the foundry industry there is beginning to recover? However, does he further agree that if coking coal cannot get through to the foundries because of the miners' dispute many thousands of jobs will be lost because of that dispute, which has nothing to do with midlands industry?

Mr. Rees: It is a regrettable facet of that dispute that it is putting jobs at risk not only in the west midlands but in other parts of the country.

Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he expects employment in Britain's manufacturing industry to be lower at the end of the year than it is now?

Mr. Rees: No Administration have ever made forecasts of unemployment, because the variables are so enormous. If he reflects on the record of the Administration that he supported, he will find that they, too, were naturally prudent about making such forecasts.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from trade associations, companies and members of the public concerning the value added tax proposals in his Budget statement of 13 March.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I have received 729 letters from trade associations, companies and members of the public concerning the value added tax proposals in the Budget.

Mr. Dykes: If major renovations or reconstructions of old buildings do not remain zero rated, is my right hon. Friend not worried that old buildings outside the highest value areas of London and elsewhere could suffer accelerated decay and decline and not receive the refurbishment and renovation that they get now? Will my right hon. Friend seriously reconsider the problem?

Mr. Lawson: I appreciate that there is anxiety in some quarters, for the reason that my hon. Friend has given, but I do not believe that those fears are justified. It will still be economic, in many cases, to refurbish and improve buildings, and generous improvement grants are also available.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Can the right hon. Gentleman give a clear undertaking that he has no intention of imposing VAT on basic foods?

Mr. Lawson: I have no present intention— [HON.MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—of extending VAT beyond the areas to which it was extended in the Budget three weeks ago.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to information published in Regional Trends recently, more black puddings and potatoes are eaten in the north west than in other parts of the country, and that his proposal to put VAT on take-away foods will put those living in the north west at a disadvantage?

Mr. Nicholas Winteron: That is rubbish, because black puddings are served cold.

Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. Friend has muttered from a sedentary position, on most occasions black puddings are sold cold and they would therefore not be affected by the tax. I realise that there is some concern in the north west about this matter. No one likes the introduction of a new tax. In Manchester on Friday I met a delegation from the Chinese community who own a large number of fish and chip shops as well as Chinese takeaway establishments in the Greater Manchester area. I do not believe that the measure will lead to any serious loss of trade for those businesses. My hon. Friend must remember that what I sought to do was to decrease the amount of income tax paid by large numbers of people. I have sought to raise the tax threshold so that the average married couple will pay £2 a week less in income tax. That has to be done at the cost of increasing some taxes elsewhere.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling among the leaders of charitable organisations, not least those for the disabled, against the cruel new burden imposed by the doubling of VAT? What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received on that matter, and what action is he taking?

. Lawson: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, my hon. Friend the Minister of State announced only last week that zero rating would be applied for certain building alterations for the benefit of the handicapped.

Mr. Bruce: The change in the tax on building and repairs has caused considerable confusion in the building industry. In the wake of a situation in which grants were available, we are now levying a tax on the same area. Is that not likely to lead to further unemployment in the construction industry, which already accounts for a quarter of all jobs lost?

Mr. Lawson: On the contrary, the construction industry not only had a very much better year last year, but has been further assisted on two fronts by the Budget. The abolition of the national insurance surcharge has assisted it as a conspicuously labour-intensive industry, and there has also been the halving of stamp duty to 1 per cent. and the raising of the tax threshold for stamp duty from £25,000 to £30,000. The industry is confident that these changes will give it a tremendous fillip during the coming year. It was under the old system that confusion arose, because repairs and maintenance were liable to VAT, whereas alterations were zero rated. There was tremendous abuse, as that borderline was almost impossible to police properly.

Small Businesses

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from industry about the effect of his Budget proposals on small businesses.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): Most organisations representing industry have welcomed the Budget proposals, particularly the effect on small business of the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the immediate reduction in the small companies corporation tax rate to 30 per cent.

Mr. Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the many measures in the Budget, which are of considerable help to the small business sector. I should like to ask about one measure which was not mentioned in the Budget—the loan guarantee scheme. May I urge him, when it comes up for consideration, to do everything possible to keep that excellent scheme, which is supported by many people in the small business sector?

Mr. Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for his commendation of the Budget measures relating to small business. I am sure he will have read the press today and seen that the Department of Trade and Industry published the Robson Rhodes report yesterday. The matter is therefore under review and I cannot anticipate the outcome. Decisions on the future of the scheme will be announced in due course by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Freeson: Does the Financial Secretary agree that many small building firms do most of their work for housing associations and local authorities in housing refurbishment? Does he further agree that when the budgets of housing associations and local authorities are cash limited, the imposition of VAT on refurbishment work will result in a considerable reduction in the amount of such work done by small builders?

Mr. Moore: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to draw the attention of small firms to the enormous advantages that they will receive from other parts of the Budget, especially the abolition of the NIS and the reduction of corporation tax to 30 per cent. for small companies, up to £100,000. Those are significant improvements for small businesses, including construction companies. Moreover, 75 per cent. of the business in the construction industry is new construction.

Mr. Rowe: I understand that my hon. Friend cannot comment yet on the results of his review of the loan guarantee scheme, but will he bear in mind that the failure rate among new businesses, irrespective of whether they are supported by a loan guarantee, is high and will inevitably be higher with the loan guarantee scheme in its present form, as banks tend to put more than they should of their less good risks into that scheme?

Mr. Moore: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I remind him that it is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's review, and I shall draw his attention to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Maxton: As none of the measures that the Government have so far taken has stopped the ever-accelerating number of small businesses going bankrupt, is there anything in the Budget that will stop that tide?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Moore: The reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) from a sedentary position and of people outside the House who represent small businesses seem to me to be a much clearer sign of the potential. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to what the chairman of the CBI smaller firms council said. He talked about my right hon. Friend the Chancellor producing a "small business Budget". It is more important to remember those words than those of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Financial Secretary agree with the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. that this is a Budget for big business, not for small business? That being so, does he think that the Kentucky Fried Chicken organisation is a big or a small business, in view of its decision to freeze the opening this year of 350 new outlets because of the Chancellor's policies?

Mr. Moore: With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, no, I do not agree with such comments. I agree with the observations from the outside world that this is an opportunity budget. I hope that companies, including the one which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will, on further consideration, understand the opportunities presented by the Budget to small and big businesses.

Public Expenditure and Taxation

Mr. Proctor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the Green Paper, "The Next Ten Years: Public Expenditure and Taxation into the 1990s", Cmnd. 9189; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: No formal representations have been received to date. I understand that the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee will he examining the Green Paper, and I look forward to its views.

Mr. Proctor: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he is not blown off his declared course by making certain that finance determines expenditure, and not the other way around?

Mr. Lawson: That is my firm intention. Too often expenditure has been allowed to grow in response to perceived needs and this has led to far greater total expenditure than the economy can safely carry, thus creating many of the problems that we have had. That is why it is our firm intention to ensure that public expenditure in total is maintained within what the economy can afford, allowing for further reductions in public borrowing and in taxation.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the Chancellor soon satisfy the demand for a second Green Paper, "Into the 1990s", in which he will set out all the measures necessary, or which he considers necessary, to accomplish economic growth, in spite of far less North sea oil, at the rate of 2·25 per cent. into the 1990s which is the precarious assumption on which all the speculations in the present Green Paper are balanced?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman's appetite for Green Papers is insatiable, but then, of course, he represents a green party. I have to tell him that the Green Paper on the next 10 years explicitly allowed for declining North sea oil revenues. That is fully taken into account.

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that there will be no agreement with the European Community about own resources unless he can also give an undertaking to the House that the average net contribution at today's prices to the Community over the next 10 years will be less than over the last 10 years?

Mr. Lawson: Although I am not quite sure that that really arises on this question, I am happy to answer by

saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made the Government's position perfectly clear on this.—[Laughter.] I am sorry, I meant my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Gould: Is the Chancellor aware that the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors and other industrialists in similar spheres are extremely concerned at the low level of public capital spending? Will he now take action to rescue that form of spending from its historically low levels, both in the interests of the economy as a whole and for the purpose of maintaining our industrial infrastructure?

Mr. Lawson: I am confident that the Budget measures that I introduced on 13 March will give the British economy the best chance of sustaining and continuing the very sound recovery that is now under way, the soundest recovery that we have had for a long time, from which various sectors of the economy will benefit. To single out one sector and argue for special measures for it is not an approach that I favour.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Chancellor recall that on page 26 of the Green Paper there is a list of assumptions which the Government have made for the next three or four years? Missing from that list is an assumption about unemployment during the next three years. What assumptions have the Government made about that?

Mr. Lawson: The assumptions in the Green Paper are consistent with the continuing decline in unemployment over the 10-year period as a whole.

Industry (Budget Proposals)

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects to be the overall financial benefit to industry of the tax proposals in his Budget.

Mr. Moore: The Budget measures directly affecting business will reduce its tax burden over the next two years, taken together, by about £900 million, compared with an indexed base.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the abolition of the national insurance surcharge and the new corporation tax structure have been widely welcomed as bold and imaginitive, and that one particularly attractive aspect of this is the fact that companies will be able to plan ahead for three years with certainty because the Chancellor has announced the corporation tax rates for that far ahead?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. It is the certainty that companies now have about the long-term pattern of changes that will be introduced in the Finance Bill that will give them a unique opportunity. The reductions in corporation tax rates to 35 per cent. will produce a lasting cut in companies' tax burdens as well as the lasting reduction for them of taxation through the abolition of the NIS.

Mr. Bermingham: Will the Minister explain to the double-glazing industry how the imposition of VAT can assist it to increase its production, bearing in mind that this will lead to increased cost to purchasers and, therefore, to an expected decrease in sales? Perhaps he will explain to them and to those who work in the industry how the Budget will help them.

Mr. Moore: First, 75 per cent. of all new construction is not subject to VAT, and the double glazing industry is critically involved in new construction. Secondly, about 95 per cent. of companies will pay corporation tax at the rate of 30 per cent. from now on, which will be a unique advantage. Thirdly, there is the removal of the national insurance surcharge. That will remove a direct burden on the double-glazing industry, which is employment-intensive.

Dr. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that the president-elect of the CBI described the Budget and the tax changes as "painful for some", that is for companies in the manufacturing industry, whose tax bill, in some instances, will increase by 25 per cent. in two years' time? Is he further aware that the tax changes will do nothing for jobs or investment in manufacturing industry and that the Budget confirms people's belief that the Government are deeply prejudiced against manufacturing industry?

Mr. Moore: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish me to complete the quotation from Sir James Cleminson, which contains many good points. In describing the Budget he said:
It is radical but it will be painful for some. It is a challenging Budget for business and we look forward to playing our part in this, a medium-term strategy for business, to help in the recovery.
I am delighted to be able to complete the quotation for the House.

Budget Proposals (Correspondence)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters he has received since introducing his Budget.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): More than 2,000 letters have been received.

Mr. Winnick: The authors were probably wasting their time. Is it not right that the Government do not expect any reduction in unemployment during the next financial year? Is the Minister aware that any Budget that does not lead to a reduction in the misery of mass unemployment must be considered a failure?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman and the Labour party should regard themselves as miserable failures for having imposed a tax—the national insurance surcharge —on jobs. The removal of that tax by the Government will be the equivalent of benefiting industry and employers by £3,000 million a year. It is downright effrontery for the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government for the effect of the Budget on jobs.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us are very much in favour of the imposition of VAT on building extensions and alterations, but have great reservations about the introduction of the imposition by June as it will have an effect on existing contracts for which private individuals have already budgeted closely?

Mr. Stewart: I take my hon. Friend's point. It is always difficult to establish a cut-off date for such a change. However, there are various means open to those who will be affected. For example, they can pay for the work under contract before 1 June. If the work is completed before 1 June, it will be relieved of VAT. There will be apportionment of time for work that spans that date.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: What is the Minister doing for small unincorporated companies which do not pay corporation tax but benefit from capital allowances? Their investment will suffer as a result of the Budget.

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the Budget contains measures to reduce the burden of income tax for all. The removal of the national insurance surcharge will help unincorporated businesses as well as the incorporated.

Mr. Forman: Were there some letters among the correspondence received by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which it was stated that the Budget would be good for employment? Were there letters in which it was stated that there was a need to do more for the long-term unemployed — specifically, the need to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to the long-term unemployed?

Mr. Stewart: There were many letters among the total to which I referred which gave a strong welcome to the Budget, both for what it has done for the prospects for jobs and for economic recovery. Social security matters are normally dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Terry Davies: How many letters drew attention to the fact that this Budget gives most to the people who already have most and does nothing for the people who have least? When Ministers reply to the letters do they explain this as being inevitable, accidental or a direct result of Government decision?

Mr. Stewart: It was a direct result of Government decision that we concentrated proportionately the greatest help on those who are lowest paid. It is something of which Conservative Members are proud.

International Debt

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further discussions he has had with Finance Ministers, and others, regarding international debt rescheduling; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lawson: I will be attending a meeting of the interim committee of the International Monetary Fund next Thursday at which international debt may well be discussed.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm that during the past six months the amount of rescheduling that has had to take place has increased by 35 per cent. and that the Brazilian ambassador said yesterday that the rescheduling being imposed upon Brazil was likely to lead to malnutrition and urban violence in a period of austerity? Will he also confirm that during this year, prior to the American presidential election, there will be an increase in interest rates as a result of which there will be greater restrictions on those countries that have rescheduled their debts——

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has had a very good run.

Mr. Skinner: If the Government can take part in an exercise to reschedule so as to bail out banks that have been imprudent, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us why they do not bail out the pits which they say are uneconomic?

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is rather losing his touch. In regard to the problems of international debt, the international financial community — that includes the United Kingdom—is following a two-pronged approach. One is to give assistance to these countries; the other is to make sure that they put their own houses in order. Both elements are important.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an awful lot of nonsense is talked about rescheduling these debts, not least by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but also by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)? Is it not a fact that the British banks have behaved completely responsibly in this matter and in accordance with the best banking practice to reach agreement on the basis on which they have done.

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. If there is scope for criticism of banks throughout the world — this applies more to American banks than to British banks—it is that they have allowed themselves to become overextended in these countries. Having had to face such a situation. they have behaved with considerable responsibility.

Life Assurance Premiums

Mr. Hirst: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the administrative arrangements for the withdrawal of the tax relief on life assurance premiums with effect from midnight on 13 March 1984.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people completed proposals for life assurance that could not be accepted by 13 March because a medical examination had not taken place? Does he accept that many of these people are genuinely hard luck cases? Is he prepared to review the arrangements for withdrawal of tax relief so as to give relief to people who applied for life assurance prior to the deplorable leak by The Guardian?

Mr. Stewart: I am afraid that it would not be possible to make a change of the kind that my hon. Friend is seeking. Any cut-off date causes problems, but to set a later date or to impose conditions of the kind mentioned would not be practicable.

Mr. Barron: Does the Minster agree that what should be done in cases like this is either to make sure that there are no more leaks from Whitehall in relation to Budget proposals or to leak them earlier?

Mr. Stewart: The announcements made by my right hon. Friend in the Budget were operative from that date. Of course, if speculation takes place before that the market has to react in its own way.

PAYE (Computerisation)

Mr. Favell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of computerisation of the pay-as-you-earn system; and when he expects it to be fully implemented.

Mr. Moore: I am pleased to say that the programme is proceeding to time and costs. It is expected to be fully implemented, as planned, by the end of 1987 or early 1988.

Mr. Favell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Has the system the capacity to keep the nation's records of national insurance contributions?

Mr. Moore: When fully installed, the system will have the capacity, and that service could be provided. However, there would need to be an operational need for it.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that by blocking all major income tax reform for six years, the income tax computerisation programme is the biggest menace to the sovereignty of Parliament since King Charles I? Will he guarantee that, by the end of 1987, no Treasury Minister will persist in using the argument that tax reform has to be deferred until these machines are in order?

Mr. Moore: I shall not endorse the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, but I know that he will be delighted at the way that the proposals are proceeding to cost and time. When they are fully implemented, structural changes in personal taxation will be easier to impose.

Mr. Hanley: Is my hon. Friend broadly satisfied with the choice of hardware and software used for this computerisation?

Mr. Moore: Speaking on behalf of the Inland Revenue, I can say that it is well satisfied with the level of collaborative effort with ICL. This collaboration between the private and public sectors is an excellent example of what good work can be achieved in Britain.

Motor Vehicles (Taxation Revenue)

Mr. Roger King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected total revenue from vehicle excise duty, duty on petrol, special car tax and value added tax on the purchase of motor vehicles in 1984–85.

Mr. Peter Rees: It is estimated that the total yield will be about £8·9 billion.

Mr. King: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does it not show the wide gap between what the Government raise in revenue from the motor industry and the motorist and what is spent on behalf of the road user? Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain the relationship between the 25 per cent. tax payable on. a British-made Austin Metro car and the 15 per cent. tax paid on an imported Japanese video?

. Rees: My hon. Friend should recognise that capital expenditure on roads will be up by 20 per cent. next year. As for the relationships between the duties on videos and cars, that is an interesting question, but we should not draw any general conclusions about the way that that might affect the motor industry.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make sure—when dealing with tax arising from motor cars—that the excellent and humane suggestion in the Budget about vehicles for disabled people is not ruined by the Customs and Excise? Is he aware that the revenue wishes to thwart the Chancellor's proposal that cars for disabled people should not be taxed?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is rather harsh on a distinguished and historic Department of State. He has drawn attention to the fact that there will be a vehicle excise duty exemption for the recipients of war pensions


and mobility supplement and that there will also be zero rating for VAT and relief from car tax for cars able to take disabled people in wheelchairs.

Mr. Rooker: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman fully understand that the Customs and Excise is saying that to put into operation the Chancellor's Budget promise the vehicle has to be able to take a stretcher? Is that not ridiculous?

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. This covers cars designed to take both people who are in wheelchairs and those who are on stretchers.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Leigh: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the public sector borrowing requirement following recent changes in interest rates.

Mr. Lawson: The Budget estimate for the PSBR for 1983–84 was £10 billion or 3·5 per cent. of GDP. The outturn will be published on Tuesday 17 April. The PSBR forecast for 1984–85 is £7·25 billion or 2·5 per cent. of GDP.

Mr. Leigh: Given that the PSBR as a proportion of GDP has declined from 5·4 per cent. in 1979 to 3·25 per cent. today and that interest rates have declined from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent., will my right hon. Friend confirm the devastating effect that high Government borrowing has on industry's ability to borrow—in other words, the more that the Government borrow the harder it is for anyone else?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. One of the Government's main objectives in bringing the borrowing requirement down, as they have done, is to ensure that the continued reduction in inflation can be achieved alongside a steady reduction in interest rates. It is interesting to note that, since 1979, long-term interest rates in the United Kingdom have decreased by 3 per cent. while in the United States they have increased by 3 per cent.

Mr. Ashton: Is it not more than coincidence that when the building societies wanted to increase interest rates last spring they deferred that action until after the June election and, now that they wish to reduce interest rates, they will do so in May? That will affect the rate of increase of pensioners' pay rises in November. How does the Secretary of State manage to train his poodles so well?

Mr. Lawson: The building societies make their own decisions in their own time. This Government, unlike the previous Labour Government, do not seek to interfere. I am sure that the House will welcome the 1 per cent. reduction in the mortgage rate announced after the Budget.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: How will the sale later this year of £2 billion worth of BT stock and other public sector stock affect the market? Will that sale not cause crowding out as well?

Mr. Lawson: It will not cause crowding out. There is ample capacity for reduced Government borrowing and for equity issues in the private and public sector. That sale will assist in reducing the demands the Government must make on the gilt-edged market.

Mr. Budgen: How can finance determine expenditure when so much expenditure in Britain and in the EEC generally is demand-led?

Mr. Lawson: A great deal of expenditure is not demand-led.

Mr. Hattersley: If there is the simple relationship between Government borrowing and interest rates that the right hon. Gentleman has just described, why is it that in Germany, Japan, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands there are higher levels of Government borrowing but lower long-term interest rates?

Mr. Lawson: Those countries have been successful in reducing inflation to lower levels than Britain has so far done. Interest rates are affected by the level of inflation. The Government's policy is, therefore, a combination of getting public borrowing and inflation down.

Mr. Hattersley: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I call Mr. Winterton to ask question 14.

Construction Industry (VAT)

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on his decision to bring house extensions and alterations within the scope of value added tax.

Mr. Ian Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received representations from many trade bodies engaged in the construction industry, from individual firms and from members of the public.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. I appreciate that the Government are aware of many of the complications that that proposal will bring about. Will he accept from me, as a person who has worked for many years in the construction industry, that the proposal to bring house extensions and alterations within the scope of VAT is likely to increase the black economy and encourage the cowboys within the building industry, which, sadly, will be to the detriment of the qualified registered builder, who is desperately in need of work?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend's anxieties are not justified. The construction industry is experiencing rising output and is participating strongly in the recovery. Irregular operators and cowboys had much more scope in the days when it was possible to classify repairs and maintenance as zero rate alterations than they will have under the new regime.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How many further jobs in the construction industry, especially on Merseyside, will be lost because of the extension of that tax?

Mr. Stewart: I shall not speculate about the effect on jobs in particular industries or particular areas. I do not doubt that the Budget as a whole, considering all the measures for companies and individuals, will assist the economic recovery, and that is the best way to look after future employment.

Average Wages

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the increase in average wages has exceeded the rate of inflation in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.

Mr. Peter Rees: Over the 12 months to January 1984 the increase in the retail price index was 5·1 per cent., and


the underlying increase in the whole economy average earnings index was about 7·75 per cent. The underlying increase in average earnings has therefore exceeded the rate of inflation by more than about 2·5 per cent. over the year to January.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is bad news for employment? If average wages continue to increase faster than prices, are not fewer people likely to be employed? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the need to moderate the rise in real wages in the interests of easing unemployment? Will he do that by public education and persuasion and by direct action in the public sector?

Mr. Rees: I accept the conclusion that my hon. Friend draws. The picture, however, is not one of unrelieved gloom. Unit wage costs are not increasing remotely as fast as earnings, because productivity increases have been sustained.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Dr. Marek: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Marek: Did the right hon. Lady hear the lunchtime news today, which carried a report of a death in unexplained circumstances of an employee at GCHQ Cheltenham? Can she give the House any further information on that matter?

The Prime Minister: I am not certain to which matter the hon. Gentleman is referring. I know a number of—but they will be reported in due time when all the information is known.

Mr. Farr: If my right hon. Friend has a chance today, will she consider the position facing some local authorities which are having to meet additional bills for police expenditure because of the miners' strike? Is she aware that in Leicestershire the bill so far is an additional £2 million? It will be difficult for local authorities to meet that sort of money out of their funds.

The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary met certain local authorities recently and has said that when we know the full extent of the bill he will generously and sympathetically consider applications for help.

Mr. Kinnock: On the specific subject of local authorities, is the Prime Minister not ashamed to be bringing before Parliament a Bill that will remove voting rights from 13 million electors in Greater London and the metropolitan counties? Will she, in the name of basic British democracy, ensure that the Bill is withdrawn?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. [Laughter.]

Mr. Kinnock: I note the humour of Conservative Members at the removal of those democratic rights. Is that

not exactly the misuse of Government power and abuse of democratic values of which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) warned during the general election? At some stage, will the Prime Minister try to provide the facts that are supposed to support her case for taking them away? When, in any democratic country, have any democratic Government given satellite status to the council of their capital city?

The Prime Minister: The policy was endorsed by the votes of 13 million people at the last general election.

Mr. Kinnock: If the right hon. Lady is referring to her manifesto, there is no mention in it of the abolition of the right to vote in any circumstances. The right hon. Lady may have a mandate for some things; she has no mandate for imposing puppet councils on London and the metropolitan counties.

The Prime Minister: The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties was a foremost part of our manifesto. We intend to carry out those abolitions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that her Office has already confirmed the report that, within the last day or two, a GCHQ employee has committed suicide; that that has been confirmed by GCHQ: that a note was left and that note confirmed that the suicide was attributable to the pressure put on that employee as a result of the Government's policy of taking away the right to belong to a trade union? Will the inquest be in public? Will the report be made available to the House? What was the rank of that GCHQ official? Will the Prime Minister make a statement about the matter?

The Prime Minister: Any suicide—I am aware of the suicide to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which was accompanied by a suicide note—will be a matter for the coroner. I expect that that note is in his possession.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement by the hard-nosed General Motors Corporation of America that it intends to invest £100 million in this country because of the changed circumstances here is a considerable vindication of the policy that she has pursued over the past four and a half years? Is she further aware that other policies of that kind will lead to further successful investment?

The Prime Minister: I saw the news to which my hon. Friend refers. It is very good news and augurs well for the future of General Motors in Britain and prospects for jobs.

Mr. James Callaghan: In giving permission to the Metropolitan police to acquire sub-machine guns, have the Government considered the impact of this serious further step in arming the police on the relationship between the police and the public, and on the very nature of the police service? I recognise the Government's dilemma in protecting foreign Heads of Government, but would it not be preferable in those circumstances to give that responsibility to the regular armed services when the Government are faced with short-term need? If the Metropolitan police are armed with sub-machine guns,


that could change the character of the force and sacrifice a long-term beneficial system of policing to a short-term need.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to a request from the Metropolitan police for the purchase of a small number of sub-machine guns, as I said on Tuesday. The right hon. Gentleman may recollect, as it is within public knowledge, that as long ago as 1976 the Labour Administration approved the acquisition by the Metropolitan police of a small number of conventional sub-machine guns — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah".] — for possible use in a terrorist emergency—a cause which I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman and the then Home Secretary had very much in mind when they approved that purchase.

Mr. Callaghan: rose——

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Reverting to the question raised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), is my right hon. Friend aware that the authorisation for the purchase of sub-machine guns by the police was given by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) when he was Home Secretary? Is she further aware that when the Leader of the Opposition seeks to make mischief and to attack the British police for doing what the Labour Government authorised them to do he is stabbing in the back the best police service in the world?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that any Home Secretary would have considered such a request very carefully, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend did, and had good reason for granting it.

Mr. Callaghan: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we should move on. I think that the House will consider it fair if I call the next question, as the Leader of the Opposition has had three opportunities to ask a question.

Later—

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise with you a point of order relating to remarks made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), which you and the House will have heard during the Prime Ministr's Question Time. The hon. Gentleman said that I made an attack on the police. That has never been true, is not true, and never will be true.
My references to the use of sub-machine guns —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the right hon. Gentleman on a point of order, and I want to hear him.

Mr. Kinnock: My references to the provision of submachine guns for body guarding purposes are anything but an attack on the police, for whom I have every respect. The hon. Gentleman is sponsored in the House by the Police Federation, but my opinions are held in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan); the editor of Gun Review, himself a former police inspector, who called the Government's decision "horrendous"; and the editor of The Times this morning.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Many provocative things are said in the Chamber from both sides of the House. I hope that

we shall not have an extension of Question Time through points of order. I called the Leader of the Opposition, and I wanted to hear what he had to say.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition raised what he claimed to be a point of order. To protect Back Benchers, will you declare that spuriously to raise as a point of order something that in no sense is a point of order is just as unacceptable from the Front Benches as it is from the Back Benches—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on procedural matters and I entirely agree with what he has said. I called the Leader of the Opposition, and to that extent it is my responsibility, not his. I do not think that we should take this matter any further.

Kingswood

Mr. Hayward: asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Kingswood.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Hayward: On behalf of the residents of Kingswood, may I extend an invitation to my right hon. Friend to visit that area, where she will find extreme concern among many of my constituents who, in view of United States' unwillingness to export high technology in the form of extra-territoriality, cannot understand why the Government are considering the purchase of a United States ship-to-ship guided weapon, when an equivalent is available in Britain?

The Prime Minister: As I indicated a few days ago, a decision will be taken fairly soon as to which surface-to-surface guided weapon will be purchased for the needs of the Royal Navy. The factors that my hon. Friend has mentioned, with a number of others, will be taken fully into account.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: If the Prime Minister visits Kingswood, will she explain to the hon. Gentleman's constituents how she reconciles her statement of May 1979 that the public have a right to look to the Government for protection from crime with the fact that since then robberies have increase by well over 50 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the vastly increased police resources now compared with that time. He will also be aware that the latest crime figures show a small but welcome overall reduction in crime.

Engagements

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister now give a simple yes or no answer to the following question? When she went to the palace of the Sultan of Oman to discuss the Cementation contract, was she then aware that her son was working for Cementation? Will she confirm or deny that the fee of £85,000 was paid to Mark, as reported in the press last Sunday?

The Prime Minister: I have answered many questions about my visit to Oman, the Oman university project and official meetings and discussions with representatives of the Government of Oman and others connected with the project. I have nothing further to add to those answers.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment today to plan with the Foreign Secretary a follow-up of British initiatives on the banning of chemical weapons and support for the new American initiatives in that sphere?

The Prime Minister: We welcome the recent initiatives by President Reagan to table further proposals. That initiative was foreshadowed in a speech by Mr. Shultz at the Stockholm conference recently. As my hon. Friend knows, we had previously tabled an initiative on chemical warfare, including the right to challenge inspection. We warmly support President Reagan's present initiative. At a time when chemical weapons have been used, it is extremely important that we should secure a comprehensive ban on their manufacture, stockpiling and use.

Mr. Steel: In standing up for British interests, how does the Prime Minister justify the sudden severe cut in milk production inflicted on Britain, when we are less than self-sufficient, whereas the French, who overproduce, will have only one third of those cuts? Is she aware that that policy could spell financial disaster, especially for small dairy farmers?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are self-sufficient in liquid milk and almost self-sufficient in dairy products, perhaps more so when one takes into account the imports that we have in support from New Zealand. I had thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the European Community and the common agricultural policy, although I would not necessarily have deduced that from what he has said today. I hope he will agree that the recent decisions to reduce the overall surpluses are in the

interests of the Community and especially of those who pay for so many of the surpluses to be subsidised and sold cheaply to other countries.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend has an outstanding reputation for visiting all parts of the United Kingdom. Will she try to find time in the not-too-distant future to visit some of the dairy farmers in my constituency and explain to them why the full burden of the irresponsibility of successive Governments and of the European Community is being placed on their shoulders? Bearing in mind that schemes have been introduced for the coal industry and the steel industry, in which restructuring has taken place, will the Government introduce a United Kingdom Government-funded scheme to help dairy farmers——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

The Prime Minister: Other dairy farmers in other Community countries are taking just as big a cut in production as we are. In fact, in Germany and Holland the cut is slightly larger. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it was necessary to try to reduce the surpluses that have been produced year after year and have been stockpiled. For example, there is nearly a year's stockpile of butter in the Community.
There are schemes to help farmers. For example, the European Community has agreed to continue for two years the income aid for small dairy farmers. In addition, there are pension or lump sum aids for farmers who want to give up farming, and various grant schemes for those who want to invest to change the nature of their farming. I hope that these schemes will help. I recognise that it is diffcult for farmers, but I think they recognise that action had to be taken.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 APRIL—Completion of the London Regional Transport Bill.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Telecommunications Bill.
TUESDAY IO APRIL—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY II APRIL—Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill.
Motion relating to the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations.
THURSDAY I2 APRIL — Consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing and Building Control Bill.
Motions relating to the Local Government Superannuation (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY I3 APRIL—It is proposed that the House should rise for the Easter Adjournment until Wednesday 25 April.
Consideration of any Lords messages which may be received.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce now that the business for the first week after the Easter Adjournment will be as follows:
WEDNESDAY 25 APRIL—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day).
Subject for Debate to be announced.
Motions relating to National Health Service Charges Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 26 APRIL —Third Reading of the Trade Union Bill.
Second Reading of the Housing Defects Bill.
FRIDAY 27 APRIL—In the event of the House agreeing to the motion on today's Order Paper, consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, for the sake of greater accuracy, changing the title of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill to "Local Government (Removal of Voting Rights) Bill", so that everyone will understand the substance of the Bill? Can he also tell us whether he will support the efforts that are taking place to take the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, because it is an important constitutional measure?
The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is grave concern about the manufacture and sale of chemicals that can be made into weapons, especially in the light of the report in this morning's Daily Telegraph that British firms sold nerve gas constituents to both Iran and Iraq last year? Will he make arrangements for the House to hear a statement from the Government as soon as possible announcing a ban on all such sales of chemicals?
Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have refused the Opposition's request for a statement about the massive cuts in jobcentres which were announced yesterday? Is not the Government aware that, at a time of very high unemployment, what is needed is more advice and assistance for the unemployed and not a

policy of hiding jobcentres away in corners of supermarkets, which contradicts the interests both of the unemployed and of prospective employers?
We shall break for the Easter recess at the end of next week, as the right hon. Gentleman has announced. Meanwhile, the concern continues about infringements of civil liberties which have been reported in the course of applications under Standing Order No. 10. May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that, if there is no significant improvement in these circumstances, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the early part of next week in order to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10.

Mr. Biffen: I will respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman made in the reverse order in which he made them — first by thanking him, not merely for myself but for many others in the House, for his statement that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is considering an application under Standing Order No. 10; that is noted.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on the proposal concerning jobcentres. He will appreciate that the commissioners of the Manpower Services Commission have yet to make a recommendation on the issue. That in turn will have been received by the Government, and perhaps in due course the matter will be further considered; I shall, of course, take account of his comments.
The right hon. Gentleman requested that a statement be made on sales to Iran and Iraq of chemicals which might be used for chemical and gas warfare. I shall refer his remarks to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and doubtless he will consider whether it would be appropriate to make a statement.
I note that with his unerring accuracy for matters of great moment, the right hon. Gentleman expressed unease over the title of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill—I suspect that even if the title were changed, the substance would remain somewhat unacceptable—and that led him to make a request for the matter to be determined on the Floor of the House. That decision ultimately, can, of course, rest with the House at the conclusion of the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: In view of the deteriorating situation in Gibraltar because of the threatened closure of the dockyard there, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether there is any possibility of having a debate on the Floor of the House on the future of that dependent territory?

Mr. Biffen: I fear that I can only be discouraging to my hon. Friend about the provision of Government time. But he will have noticed that Friday 13 April will be devoted to Adjournment motions, and he might like to try his hand on that occasion.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to make a further statement next week on the best and most appropriate method of safeguarding visiting Heads of Government and Heads of State to this country? Will he also ask if she will make available to me the papers on which the decision was taken by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in 1976 so that I may


see whether a mistake was made, either by him or by me? That does not alter the fact that, at the present time, it seems appropriate that more serious consideration should be given to the matter.

Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, pass on those requests by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Marlow: We have been told that the Government will consider an increase in own resources for the Community only if the budget and the agricultural policy are solved. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if an arrangement is come to over the budget and the agricultural policy and this House then declines to increase the Community budget, as it might do —and, as my right hon. Friend knows as well as I do, any increase in own resources will go to agriculture—the two preceding parts of the deal, on the budget and agricultural reform, will stand?

Mr. Biffen: There are complexities enough in dealing with Community relationships without entertaining the hypotheses that my hon. Friend puts forward.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Leader of the House undertake to make a statement—either next week or, after reflection, during the Easter recess — about a new ministerial question rota? Is he aware that twice in the past week Mr. Speaker has had to rule out of order questions to the Prime Minister about the silence of the Leader of the Opposition on matters such as the miners' national ballot and that this week the Opposition gave up half an Opposition day to the Government when they could have debated the matter? Will he accept that now that we have reached the constitutional position in which the Leader of the Opposition and several of his colleagues are paid ministerial salaries, they should be answerable to this House? Please may the Leader of the Opposition be included in the rota for questions?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman should not seek to tempt me. The question roster is normally a matter for the usual channels, and the matter will be considered there.

Sir Dudley Smith: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week I raised with him the urgent question of parallel importing, when he was kind enough to say that he would raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Social Services? Nothing has happened. Will he please again ask our right hon. Friend to try to do something in the coming weeks?

Mr. Biffen: Certainly.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The Leader of the House will have seen the statement by Mr. MacGregor, reported in today's press, that he is prepared for a long struggle in the miners dispute. Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss that serious statement with the Prime Minister, and ask her to make a statement next week saying whether she endorses that point of view?

Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has her attention drawn to the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Tim Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 639 on the taxation of vehicles for the disabled?

[That this House, having welcomed the Chancellor's statement that 'neither car tax nor value-added tax will apply to family cars registered for disabled people or substantially adapted for their use', notes with concern reports that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise propose to restrict the application of this exemption to vehicles that can accommodate a stretcher or a wheelchair and no more than five other people; and calls on the Chancellor to ensure that his Budget statement is implemented.]
Will he ensure that we have an early debate on that or at least some clarification of the issues raised following questions to the Treasury?

Mr. Biffen: I must say that I would take every opportunity that was provided by the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent statement of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that he favours the privatisation of the mining industry? Is he also aware of the great interest and concern about whether he was speaking on behalf of the Government? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot helpfully reply to that statement, except to say that I should have thought that the Government's view on public ownership of the coal industry was well established.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Five weeks ago I raised with my right hon. Friend the serious problem of the future of the newspaper publishing industry, when he suggested that I should try for an Adjournment debate. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful. Is there any other method of raising this point, which is just as serious as it was five weeks ago?

Mr. Biffen: As the problem is taking on the characteristic of semi-permanence, my advice must be —keep trying.

Mrs. Renée Short: For the past four weeks hon. Members have been pressing the right hon. Gentleman for a debate on the Griffiths report. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety that unless we have a debate his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will try to implement that report by stealth, which will be a matter of great concern to the NHS? Will he give an undertaking that we shall have a debate as soon as possible after the business that has been announced today?

Mr. Biffen: It is my anxiety that there shall be an early debate.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members would greatly appreciate knowing what sort of arrangements will be made for certain services in areas such as Leeds when the abolition of the metropolitan counties takes place? Today we have a statement on the Inner London education authority. Some of us in Leeds are concerned about future provision for the theatres. Can we have a statement on the new arrangements for the arts?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot give a categorical undertaking to my hon. Friend, but he might find it useful to take part in the Second Reading debate that is promised for next week.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statements that have been made by the new Administration in Ankara that they will not support any move towards a unification of Cyprus? As UDI was declared as long ago as last November, when will the House have an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on the Government's attitude towards Cyprus, for we are one of the guarantor powers for that island?

Mr. Biffen: I hope that the fact that the hon. Gentleman makes the point on next week's business now will not preclude him from taking part in the Adjournment debate tonight. I have never yet taken part in an Adjournment debate in which he did not raise this topic. I admire his persistence, and I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary knows of his anxiety and his request for a statement.

Mr. W. Benyon: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), is it possible to have further details of the Government's proposals for the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties before the debate on Wednesday? Unless we do, some hon. Members will find themselves in great difficulty in that debate.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed by the tone and content of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. [AN HON. MEMBER: "How do you know?"] Because I am an optimist. I take note of what my hon. Friend says and I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the anxiety that has been expressed that a statement should precede the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Before commissioners, auditors or troops are sent into the city of Liverpool, and before people seek orders of mandamus, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the unprecedented situation in which the city of Liverpool finds itself is the subject of a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can decide what are the rights of freely and democratically elected councils?

Mr. Biffen: I note the serious situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it will certainly fall within the ambit of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. I therefore recommend the hon. Gentleman to consider making a speech when we debate that Bill.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that just before the Christmas recess I raised the question of the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive and the dumping of nuclear waste in the northeast? It is now nearly time for the Easter recess. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will be able to enjoy a summer holiday in the north-east without this worry around our necks?

Mr. Biffen: I will report my hon. Friend's anxiety to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Meanwhile, he, too, might like to seek an Adjournment debate on Friday.

Mr. John Maxton: In view of the Government's opposition to the English Rugby Union's tour of South Africa and the damaging effects that that tour could have on the 1986 Commonwealth games in Edinburgh, could the Minister with responsibility for sport

make a statement about the sanctions that the Government are to take against the English Rugby Union? Will that statement be based on the same principles as the sanctions imposed on the Olympic team in Moscow — in other words, that no embassy facilities will be available to the team and that any employee of the Government who is invited to take part in the tour will be refused leave of absence?

Mr. Biffen: As I understand it, no illegality is involved in what is proposed by the rugby players——

Mr. Maxton: Nor was there in the other case.

Mr. Biffen: —but I will certainly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for sport to the hon. Gentleman's points.

Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend may have seen the two full-page advertisements in The Times today from the GLC and the metropolitan counties. He may also have seen the growing amount of GLC publicity on hoardings all over London. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make an early statement about measures to prevent this irresponsible waste of ratepayers' money?

Mr. Biffen: The way in which my hon. Friend has put his question suggests that we will have a lively debate on Second Reading of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill. That is probably the appropriate occasion for such points to be made and answered.

Mr. Peter Shore: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who was concerned about Liverpool, that the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill would provide an opportunity for discussing the problems of Liverpool. Surely that is wrong, as that squalid measure does not extend beyond the boundaries of London.

Mr. Biffen: I hope that we are in for a period of mass contrition. I was indeed somewhat generous in my interpretation of the legislation to be discussed next Wednesday in saying that it could provide an opportunity for the discussion of those points, but, nevertheless, I believe that the Bill goes beyond London.

Mr. Robert Parry: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary to condemn the attacks made by Indonesia on Papua New Guinea, which is a Commonwealth country, and will he ask him to press for an embargo on all arms sales to that country?

Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, represent to my right hon. and learned Friend the anxieties of the hon. Member.
In respect of the question asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I will refer the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt in all parts of the House about the potential impact of the miners' strike on the steel industry and on Ravenscraig in particular? Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 635, which draws attention to the fact that miners are concerned about pit closures and that one possible way out would be to offer


pits due for closure to the miners as workers' cooperatives? Could we have an early opportunity to debate this suggestion?
[That this House, concerned at the possible adverse effect the present strike in the coalfields may have for job prospects in the coal and steel industries, recognises that the miners' leaders are concerned over planned pit closures, and calls upon the Government to urge the National Coal Board to draw up plans to offer to miners in pits scheduled for closure the opportunity to continue to work their own pits as mineworker co-operatives and to offer the pits complete with mining equipment at a peppercorn rent and, in the event of the miners declining, to offer the private sector the same mines at a peppercorn rent.]

Mr. Biffen: I know that my hon. Friend is seized with enthusiasm about this topic. He, too, might like to try his hand on Friday.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise how important it is that he should uphold the principle that major constitutional measures are taken on the Floor of the House? The Bill to be debated next Wednesday is a major constitutional measure.
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make some redress to the official Opposition for the half day that they gave the Government on Tuesday out of Opposition time? If so, will he give the half day to the alliance instead, so that there will be some fairness in the distribution of Opposition time?

Mr. Biffen: On the first point, constitutional significance often lies in the eye of the beholder—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that. As to his second point, I am not able to give half a day to the alliance and, if I could, it would destroy itself in internecine quarrels about which of the two parties should have it. I believe that we conducted Tuesday's business in a good, sound common-sense way and I am sorry if anyone was disappointed.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While fully understanding my right hon. Friend's desire that nothing said in the House should exacerbate the situation in the coalfields, does he believe that it is satisfactory that the House should go into the Easter recess without there being some formal way in which the matters about which we are all concerned are properly debated here? Does he not think that, rather than leave it to Mr. Speaker to deal with a series of Standing Order No. 10 applications, it would be far better for the Government, through the usual channels, to organise matters so that next week, before the Easter recess, there will be a proper debate on this important matter?

Mr. Biffen: Let me say at once that I have a lively sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, but there is a substantial programme for legislative business which I have recommended to the House for completion before we rise for Easter, and there the matter must stand for the moment. Although it is not just a case of wanting to measure one's words delicately when facing serious and desperate circumstances, I must say that there are quite sound reasons for the House being as statesmanlike in silence as in speech.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: As the Government affect a commitment to law and order, can we have a statement next week on how the Government reconcile that pretence with their proposals to allow the security forces and the police to act unlawfully when gathering information such as is proposed in the Data Protection Bill?

Mr. Biffen: The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is to recommend either that he use his initiative as a private Member or to see what other opportunities can be obtained in the debate on the Data Protection Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the subsequent business of the House. I shall allow business questions to continue until 4.3 pm, which will be a full half hour.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since I mentioned the suffering of horses, ponies and other animals on the journey to and from market, especially those going to slaughter, I have been inundated with letters from the public. The BBC "Today" programme has also been inundated with letters, many containing evidence of what is happening. Today I received a letter pointing out that calves are being transported across the Channel——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question and not say what letters he has received.

Mr. Greenway: Can we have an early statement from the Government about their intended action on this important matter?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly refer to the relevant Ministers the topic that my hon. Friend has raised. I know that it gives rise to considerable feelings among a section of the population.

Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the reply which the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about the privatisation of the mining industry, will he take seriously the statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? We are aware of the Government's policy on this matter and take seriously the suggestion that there might be something in the talk about privatising the mining industry. In view of industrial relations in the industry, will he make a statement or allow time for the matter to be discussed on the Floor of the House? I make that request because the matter is extremely important to the mining industry, of which I am a member.

Mr. Biffen: May I say in all charity to the hon. Gentleman, who is recently arrived, that taking things seriously is one of the pitfalls of the House. That rabbit will not run.

Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), about Indonesia's attacks on Papua New Guinea, will the Leader of the House draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the reply that I received a few weeks ago showing that Indonesian officers are being trained in Britain? Will the Leader of the House encourage his hon. Friend to withdraw that facility?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) to the substantial point that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time shortly after the Easter recess for a debate on the Gower report into investor protection, bearing in mind the comments made at the time of the discussion on, and passage of, the Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Act 1984, and bearing in mind that legislation is supposed to be coming to the House in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Biffen: The protection of investors is central to the capitalist system and I am glad to recruit the hon. Gentleman to their cause. I have to say, however, that there is no prospect of a statement quite as quickly as he imagines, though I have no doubt that at some stage the House will wish to consider the matter.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Leader of the House recognise what Members on both sides of the House now believe to be the case, that the present dispute in the coal mining industry is a cause for concern? In view of the fact that the Home Secretary has made no statement at the Dispatch Box since 15 March and in view also of the many allegations under Standing Order No. 10 since that date, will he look with some urgency at the possibility of debating the matter before the House rises? Many hon. Members have constituents involved in an industrial dispute which will have lasted for something like two months if we do not debate it before we go into the Easter recess.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raises in essence the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths). I cannot conceal from the House my real sympathy with that anxiety, because the House,

very properly, expects to debate matters of major importance. There are other factors also to be considered, but we will see how we go.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true that there is a division of opinion between the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on where the Committee stage of the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will be taken? I understand that his right hon. Friend wants it taken on the Floor of the House. Will the Leader of the House now tell us that that is where, in fact, the Committee stage will be taken?

Mr. Biffen: I have nothing to add to what I have already said. As for divisions, I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that between my right hon. Friend and myself there is the absolute unanimity of the intellectual churchyard.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Further to the question of where the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill is to be debated, when the Leader of the House answered the first question from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he said that it would be up to the House itself to decide at the end of the debate on Wednesday. What is the view of the Leader of the House about this issue? Surely it is a matter of great significance, given that the Government have no mandate at all in their election manifesto for this measure and given that a Bill to abolish elections must be a matter of major constitutional significance.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is making a number of provocative comments—as indeed he is required to do, sitting where he does. I cannot reasonably add to what I have already said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The matter is still under consideration.

Mining Dispute (Police Action)

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have made any representations to the Leader of the House or to those who arrange business in the House, in view of the fact that, during the course of the past fortnight at least, you have been inundated with requests to have a debate on a very important matter which is specific and urgent—the coal mining dispute and the associated police activites—and in view of the fact that you have been placed in the middle of what is obviously a tug-of-war between the Government and others who have some influence in arranging business.
Since the Leader of the House has said several times already that there is a lot of pressing business to arrange, my constituents — particularly those who watched the police put blankets over the heads of a handful of strikebreakers and bundle them into a bus and take them through the picket line—will never believe that a debate on the Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium) Bill is more necessary to the nation, and to civil liberties, freedom of the individual and police activity than a debate on a matter which most people in the country are discussing.
It seems to me extremely strange, Mr. Speaker, that you have been placed in this predicament, in which we are this afternoon to debate for three hours the Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium) Bill, yet there is no time to debate such an important matter.

Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the Speaker is frequently in the middle of a tug-of-war.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I am sure you will recognise, the rules about Standing Order No. 10 are wondrously complicated, especially for new Members like myself. If I remember correctly, one of the requirements is that the matter be urgent. How is it possible, therefore, for the Leader of the Opposition to give five days' notice, as he did during business questions, about raising a matter under Standing Order No. 10, and is this not an abuse of the system?

Mr. Speaker: We have not heard that application yet, and I cannot rule on what is still a purely hypothetical matter.

Easter Adjournment (Debates)

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that, on the motion for the adjournment of the House on Friday 13 April, up to eight Members may raise with Ministers subjects of their own choice. Applications should reach my Office by 10 pm on Monday next. A ballot will then be held on Tuesday morning and the result made known as soon as possible thereafter.

Inner London Education Authority

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of the Inner London education authority.
The Government have been considering the responses to the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities", and the associated consultation documents. We have now reached a decision on the future arrangements for education in inner London. We think it right to inform the House of this now.
The White Paper proposed that there should continue to be a unitary education service in inner London, run by a single education authority. It also proposed that the authority should be a joint board of councillors appointed by the inner London borough councils and the Common Council of the City.
Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of the House and others with a close understanding of the needs of education in inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special case.
We propose therefore that the successor body to the ILEA should be directly elected. We intend to provide for this in the main legislation abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, to be introduced in the next Session.
It remains our intention that the new education authority for inner London should be made subject to statutory review in the light of experience.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on accepting the advice of the people of London to have a directly elected body to run education in central London? Why have the Government not listened to the people over the GLC as well? Will the Secretary of State now join me in congratulating all those who campaigned to retain a directly elected democratic body in inner London, the parents, all those who work in schools and ILEA itself, on a major victory?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any of the boroughs within inner London will be allowed to opt out or have any powers of veto? Will he confirm that the financial arrangements for the new, democratically elected body are to remain the same as those set out in the White Paper, "Streamlining the Cities"? Will he confirm that he now accepts that inner London has extra costs in running education in the centre of a major capital city and that the authority is not a profligate spender but achieves educational excellence as a result of a sound financial policy? Will he also confirm that it was one of only six authorities out of about 100 which had a clean bill of health from Her Majesty's inspectors?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what will happen in inner London over the next three years? Is it true that there will be three separate administrations in three years, in that the present body will continue until May 1985, to be succeeded by a transitional body for one year, which will be replaced on the


introduction of a new body from May 1986? Are the Government expecting all these bodies to implement cuts in education spending? Does he accept that the rate-capping measure will give all three bodies an extremely difficult task? Is he aware that the sharing of responsibility among the three bodies is likely to cause administrative chaos? Surely it would be far better to allow ILEA at least to continue until the new body is elected.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government have decided firmly, as is their right, on the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. With the abolition of the GLC it becomes necessary to find a replacement body for the conduct of education in inner London. On implementation, though not on that decision, we consulted widely, and today's announcement reflects the results of tha consultation. We are not qualifying the decision to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan county councils.
Inner London boroughs will not have the right to opt out. The Government have decided that there should be a continuing unitary authority for inner London. As I have said, there will be a power in the main Bill to review those arrangements following a study of the performance of the replacement authority.
I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that inner London faces extra education costs. However, the extra costs are provided for in the special factors that are built into the rate support grant. Despite all the zeal of those concerned with education in inner London, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman that the result represents satisfying value for money for the ratepayers or parents.
The proposals for the next three years, including those for the replacement authority, concern important details which will fall for consideration when the main Bill comes before the House.

Mr. John Maples: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much his statement is welcomed by many of us and how much many of us hope that a directly elected ILEA will lead to better education standards and better control of education expenditure? Does he agree that it would be a natural extension of the excellent idea of a directly elected ILEA for the authority to issue its own rate bills, so that Londoners can correlate their vote with education policy and the cost of that policy?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that arrangements are proposed that will provide a clear sign to London ratepayers of the cost of education in inner London.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this fascinating innovation, or rather reversion to an earlier stage in the evolution of local government, will have a wide range of application elsewhere wherever single services are administered by an appointed or indirectly elected body over a wide area?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, on this occasion I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The nature, scale and importance of the education service in inner London, when taken together, justify a directly elected authority for such a unique operation.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in settling the tricky conflict

between the interests of democratic accountability and financial responsibility for education in inner London he has obviously opted for the former? Is he aware that in doing so he is running a great risk, in that it will be difficult to control the spending of the new body, and that in many ways it will become a legitimate pressure group for spending in excess of what would otherwise be legitimate in such an area?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is on to a real point. However, he has forgotten that almost any body or organisation concerned with education in inner London will probably represent widespread, though not universal, demands for more spending. In this instance it is likely that the authority will be exposed to nomination for rate-capping. We believe that direct elections will slightly enhance the propensity to look for value for money. We think that healthy influences are being brought to bear by the Government's general education aims and, apparently, by ILEA through its recently published Hargreaves report on value for money and quality in education.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that his statement today will be most welcome, as it represents a tribute to the excellence of the service provided by the Inner London education authority, the popularity of that authority and a credit to all those who have campaigned to retain it as an elected body? Will he recognise that the tremendous success and popularity of that campaign will prove an inspiration to those in London who wish to preserve the GLC and to protect borough councils from rate capping? Will he acknowledge also that if he intends to continue with his proposition for a statutory review after the new body has been established, that will mean only that the Inner London education authority in its new form will be bedevilled by the uncertainty which has diverted so much enthusiasm, experience and commitment from improving standards within the authority to defending the very organisation itself, a defence which has continued ever since the 1979 general election?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am glad that at last the hon. Gentleman has brought his unwieldy syntax to a close. I cannot agree with any part of his rodomontade. The Government's decision reflects the serious study that they have made of the responses to the consultation process, and especially to the persuasive powers of the arguments of many bodies, including hon. Members, the Churches and the majority party in ILEA. Perhaps I should refer particularly to Professor David Smith and his Conservative colleagues in the minority party at county hall.

Mr. Harry Greenway: As a former employee of ILEA for 43 years, may I warmly welcome direct elections, as I know the teaching staff throughout the authority will? What kind of directly elected body does my right hon. Friend have in mind? Will there be multimember constituencies, and will the City be involved? Secondly, will he tell Labour Members that the future of ILEA was never in doubt and that it was grossly wrong of the authority to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money on a spurious campaign to save itself, which resulted in the disruption of children's education?

Sir Keith Joseph: I fear that I cannot answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question. He has referred to


important details, but they are not for the immediate decision of the House. They will come before the House when the substantive Bill comes before it.

Mr. John Cartwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the welcome elections that he has announced will not be meaningful unless inner Londoners are given the opportunity to decide for themselves through the ballot box important issues such as the spending and staffing levels of the authority? Will he therefore withdraw the proposal in "Streamlining the Cities" that decisions on these important matters should be imposed on the elected authority by Ministers?

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government would not have embarked upon the decision to rate-cap if it were not for the conduct of a number of local authorities throughout the country including, on its present performance, ILEA. No decision will be made about which authority might be rate-capped until nearer the time when we are able to judge recent performances.

Dr. Keith Hampson: I know that my right hon. Friend has a special case to plead, but will he say what warrants education having this special treatment as against transport, for example? What advantage does he see in replacing Mr. Ken Livingstone with Mrs. Morrell, the leader of ILEA, who will become only directly elected leader in London? Does he believe that she will do other than try to speak for London and the world?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is seeking to sour my relations with some of my right hon. Friends. I am forced to say that education in inner London deserves unique treatment because of its nature, scale and importance. As for Mrs. Morrell, or anyone who seeks to succeed her, I hope that she will have a very hard fight to retain her position on any successor body.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Can the Secretary of State explain the relationship of his statement to the Bill that we are to discuss next Wednesday, which will abolish the next GLC and ILEA elections? Does he propose that that Bill should be amended to allow the present elected councillors who run ILEA to continue in office and provide continuity, because it seems that that is the most sensible course, otherwise he will be causing great disruption to a well-run and sensible authority?

Sir Keith Joseph: So far as I understand it, there is provision for some of the members on the present Inner London education authority to have a continuing existence in the successor authority. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that these important details are not for the paving Bill, but for the main Bill.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: I understand fully the reasons why my right hon. Friend has taken this course of action and welcome the fact that he has come to these conclusions. Can he tell the House whether it is in his mind that the direct elections to the new education authority will be conterminous with the borough elections, or whether they will be held in separate years?

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sorry to have to give the same answer even to my hon. Friend, but those important matters are not for the paving Bill. This afternoon I am sharing with the House a crucial decision that the Government have made. The important details will have to be settled later.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State realise that the emphasis that he has laid on the nature, scale and importance of ILEA will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House? Why does he think that either the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Chancellor of the Exchequer is equipped to decide how much ILEA ought to spend on education?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is a question that the House has debated. I think that the debate gave the House the answer that the Government have given.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: If the undoubted realism of my right hon. Friend tells him and me that creating a directly elected education authority for London will give better value for money—his term—why should he hesitate to extend the proposal to other parts of the country?

Sir Keith Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend will not force me to give the House a catalogue of the orders of magnitude by which Inner London education authority spending exceeds that of any other municipal service. It is a multiple of five or six, which justifies me in talking about the "scale" of this unique service as well as its "nature" and "importance".

Ms. Harriet Harman: Is it not appropriate for the House to congratulate all those who stood up for London's education service — parents, teachers, non-teaching staff, the governors and the Labour-led ILEA —and forced this U-turn on the Government? Is it not the case that London's education is still suffering grievously because of spending cuts? What an odd sense of priority the Secretary of State has when he chooses to criticise and punish ILEA, which is one out of only six of the 96 education authorities in the country which his own inspectors have said is providing a service for the full range of educational needs. Should he not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Much of what the hon. Lady has said would be appropriate for the debate on the relevant Bill.

Sir Keith Joseph: An education authority for inner London was never in question or in any way at risk. What we consulted about was implementation. We have heeded the results of that consultation. As for the spending of ILEA, I think it can fairly be said that, despite the zeal of most people concerned, value for money is not its predominant characteristic.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways of dealing with ILEA would have been, and might still be, to allow those boroughs that want to do so to take over their own education? Does he also agree that even with direct elections there is no assurance that the leaders of ILEA will be those who appear to be the leaders at the time of the election? We have seen two changes in ILEA since the last GLC election. [Interruption.] Would it be a good idea if all parties started to look at the future of ILEA in terms of education and educational improvement following the Hargreaves report, rater than patting themselves on the back and thinking what a marvellous job they have done so far?

Sir Keith Joseph: As my hon. Friend says, delegation to the boroughs would have been an option, but the Government have decided that there should be a unitary


authority, although we are building into the main legislation a right of review. I can agree with my hon. Friend that some Labour leadership posts seem to be precarious. I must take the opportunity once again to pay tribute to a great deal of the contents and spirit of the recently published Hargreaves report of ILEA, where so much common ground with the Government is apparent on the pursuit of quality.

Mr. John Fraser: May I put it to the Secretary of State that if he persists in the proposals in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities", under which the Government will have control for three years over the expenditure of ILEa, all that he is doing is creating a new breed of municipal eunuchs who will be elected to perform a duty but then will not have the power to do it because of restrictions contained in other legislation?

Sir Keith Joseph: Once again I must say that this subject has been debated by the House.

Mr. Richard Tracey: In drafting this undoubtedly unique piece of local government legislation will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that proper provision must be made to ensure that expenditure is only on education and not on propaganda, advertising or information supply?

Sir Keith Joseph: It will be open to my hon. Friend to put those arguments when the main Bill comes before the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: I do not welcome the announcement, and I do not see why the House should be grateful, because the Inner London education authority is already a directly elected local authority and I speak as a directly elected member of it. I suggest that the Secretary of State should not expect to receive gratitude. Will he look carefully at the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill? Will he not have to amend it because the last paragraph makes a direct reference to the form of elections for ILEA, which is appointment via the boroughs? In those circumstances, that measure will have to be amended. Will he confirm——

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Banks: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker. Will the Secretary of State confirm that there was no mention of scrapping elections for ILEA or the GLC in the Conservative election manifesto or in the Gracious Speech? Now he is giving his right hon. Friends something of a conundrum.

Sir Keith Joseph: I appreciate any welcome, even if it is not unanimous. I do not think that what I have announced calls for any amendment to the paving Bill. The decisions following this afternoon's announcement will be involved in the main Bill.

Mr. Robin Squire: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his statement, which I believe will increase the accountability of those administering education in inner London to those whom they seek to serve? In a similar vein, will he consider in the detail the possibility of a proportion of those thus

elected being elected each year, and also having a proportional system of election to increase further accountability?

Sir Keith Joseph: That is a perfectly viable option to put to the House and to the Government when we consider the main Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I associate the Liberal party in London and nationally with the welcome that is due to the Secretary of State not only for being persuaded to retain direct elections but for improving the system? I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that a great disservice is being done to the educational needs of children in inner London by capping and cutting. If the proposals that are before the House for a change in the authority next year, a suspension of the elections, an interim authority and then new elections, are implemented, they will cause untold disruption. Will the Secretary of State accept that it would be opportune for him and his right hon. Friends to consider introducing different proposals?

Sir Keith Joseph: Once again I have to say that although those arguments have a certain validity, they are not for this occasion.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I welcome the intellectual honesty and political courage of this statement, which is typical of my right hon. Friend. In the Bill, can he suggest that the direct elections should take place at the same time as the borough elections, and can he use his power of persuasiveness on his colleagues to ensure that this important precedent extends to the supervision of other London-wide functions that will continue to be provided after the abolition of the GLC?

Sir Keith Joseph: My hon. Friend is trying to seduce me with his kind words into saying that it is not a decision for a unique service, and I cannot go along with that. The argument about the actual detail of the election will be appropriate at a later stage.

Mr. Tom Cox: The Secretary of State has twice referred to the right of review. Is he aware that when this right of review is incorporated into the legislation there will have to be clear guidelines as to what he means? Is he further aware that when the London borough of Wandsworth attempted to pull its education services out of ILEA, to be controlled by that local authority, there was enormous confusion and great bitterness was created among teachers and parents? Surely this is not what London wants to face in the coming years.

Sir Keith Joseph: There will be ample opportunity for such discussions on the main Bill, in connection with any element in it giving the power of review.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: In congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I know that I speak for the vast majority of teachers, parents and pupils in inner London. They feel that at last there is a chance to have in London an education authority that is financially accountable to the ratepayers and responsive to the educational need in London. This is worth while, but I should not wish the House to be under the impression that the advocacy of direct elections in any way endorses the administration of ILEA at the moment

Sir Keith Joseph: I do not think that what I have announced carries any such endorsement. The Government's views on the qualities, disadvantages and demerits of the service in London are well known.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State recognise that the magnificent campaign of parents, non-teaching staff, teaching staff and community organisations in defence of ILEA has been a campaign for democracy in London, and also a campaign to recognise the great areas of deprivation in London, in which higher educational spending is needed to overcome the problems? Following his earlier remarks, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement that he will lessen central Government control of ILEA after his new administration comes into operation so that members of staff, both teaching and non-teaching, and community organisations can continue to expect the high standards of service from ILEA that they have enjoyed for many years?

Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is evidently yet another person under the illusion that ILEA, or its replacement as a unitary education authority, was at risk. There was no threat to it. The consultations were about the implementation of the replacement. As for the rate-capping possibilities, I and the Government wish only that the conduct of ILEA and a handful of other authorities had not been such as to force the Government to take this action.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State reconsider his answer about what he called the detail of the next three years? Does he not recognise that in that period some children will complete the whole of their nursery education, and that many children will complete half their secondary education, so it will be a key period? He appears to be having three separate bodies responsible for the administration of inner London education during that

period. He says that this will have to wait for the main Bill, but that Bill will not be law until half way through that three-year period.
Therefore, is it not essential that he tells us now how inner London education will be administered? There will be enough difficulty in carrying out the administration with the Government's proposals for cutting funds, let alone for having three separate bodies. Is that not a recipe for chaos? The right hon. Gentleman must tell the House either now or next week what will happen.
Will the right hon. Gentleman show his customary good grace and congratulate Mrs. Morrell, ILEA, the parents and everyone else in the campaign to save democracy in inner London? Will he remember that that campaign was based on the fact that those people wanted good standards and knew that a democratic, directly elected body would give them those good standards?

Sir Keith Joseph: I ask the House to accept that I am not underestimating the importance of the questions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred by referring to them as details —I have more than once said, "albeit important details". The Government wish to be scrupulous in limiting the paving Bill to do what its title, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, implies. The purpose of the Bill is to pave the way towards the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils, but not to anticipate the decisions that Parliament will be asked to take next year on the basis of the substantive Bill.
I must resist the temptation to congratulate Mrs. Morrell on the things that the hon. Gentleman has spelt out. However, I am willing to risk my reputation, such as it is, by congratulating Mrs. Morrell and her colleagues and all ILEA on commissioning a report, the Hargreaves report, which seems to set out arguments on which all the House will agree and which unites ILEA and the Government in seeking a better quality of education for the children in inner London.

Orders of the Day — London Regional Transport Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 10

ANNUAL BUSINESS PLANS

'(1) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport in each accounting year to prepare, and cause to be published in such manner as they think fit, a plan containing their proposals with respect to the conduct of their undertaking and the businesses of their subsidiaries during the period to which the plan relates.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the plan shall give such information relevant to their proposals, and deal with such other matters, as London Regional Transport consider appropriate for presenting their proposals in the context of the past and current performance and policies of themselves and their subsidiaries.

(3) In preparing the plan London Regional Transport shall have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the form and content of the plan and the period to which it is to relate.'.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (1), leave out from 'proposals' to end and insert
'for the next three years ("the relevant period") with respect to——

(a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them, or by agreement with them, by other persons; and
(b) the general level and structure of fares to be charged for those services, and the general level of charges to be made for those facilities, so far as they are to be charged, made or otherwise determined by London Regional Transport.'.

Amendment (b) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (2), at end insert—
'(2A) The plan shall be accompanied by estimates of—

(a) the cost to London Regional Transport of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals;
(b) the benefits to potential users of those services and facilities.'.

Amendment (c) to the proposed new clause, in subsection (3), at end insert
'and shall consult about such proposals contained in the plan with——

(a) the local authorities of greater London; and
(b) the Passengers Committee.'.

Mrs. Chalker: Hon. Members who were involved in the Committee will recall that we had extensive discussions about planning for London Regional Transport, and what information should be available. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) played a part in this, as did the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). They will recall that I gave an undertaking on 14 February to look carefully at the idea that they had suggested for an annual business plan so that in discussing the future of the LRT for a forthcoming year, there would be more information than hon. Members feared might otherwise be available.
New clause 10 fulfils that undertaking because it imposes a requirement to produce an annual business plan. The clause is fairly self-explanatory. It requires London Regional Transport to produce this annual plan covering its activities and those of its subsidiaries in the context of their current and past performance and in the light of any guidance on the plan given by the Secretary of State. I shall go into this in a little more detail because some hon. Members will, in reading our proceedings, want to understand a little more as to why this was thought necessary.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East knows that I readily accepted this suggestion from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey. However, the Opposition's amendments, on which no doubt the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East will be speaking later, show that they are never satisfied, however far one seeks to meet their points. They want plans specifically to be required to cover the general level of transport services and facilities that the LRT is providing. They want the general level and structure of fares and charges to be included, and somehow they want the annual plan to cover the three-year period, let alone the fact that we have a strategic statement, as provided by clause 7, which will cover the longer period anyway.
The Opposition also want the annual plan to include estimates of costs related to provisions of the plan and benefits to potential users. Doubtless, we shall learn more from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East when he speaks. However, in a word, the Opposition want to superimpose on the planning regime of London Regional Transport nothing less than the detailed planning requirements of the Transport Act 1983 without there being the same need for them.
I shall explain why the amendments are misguided before discussing our intentions in more detail. Hon. Members must realise that we require LRT to publish an annual business plan in addition to undertaking the many other actions demanded of it. That will mean that LRT will be subject to the most rigorous statutory regime for planning, consultation and information of any nationalised industry. Although I have always said that there may be room for improvement in some of the planning of nationalised industries, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East seeks to push me to make measures far in excess of what it is reasonable to require of LRT. We have already built into the Bill unprecedented opportunities for involving in LRT's affairs Londoners and those hon. Members who represent them.
I shall detail those opportunities. Provision is made for a strategy statement to be made at least every three years as outlined in clause 7. It will involve full consultation. As hon. Members who served in Committee know, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) tabled amendments requiring that statement to be published at least every three years, and we gladly accepted that measure. In addition, there is to be the new improved passengers' committee with new powers—for the first time combining British Rail passengers' interests with those of LRT. As stated in clause 33, an annual report will be presented to Parliament. Parliament will conduct an annual debate on the ratepayers levy order. There is also a statutory requirement for LRT to publish information on fares and services. On top of all that, we have agreed that there should be an annual business plan.
It is ridiculous for the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East to suggest that we are not prepared to have proper discussion or, as he described it in Committee, accountability. We are in danger of making LRT what could be described as eggbound, because we are requiring it to produce a far greater amount of information than normally required of a nationalised industry. Sometimes I think that the hon. Gentleman will never be satisfied unless he has a referendum on every matter. That is not my view of how we should run a business.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Chalker: It is a little early, but I shall give way.

Mr. Cohen: If the Minister feels that LRT will be eggbound by being forced to produce all those plans, why did the Government require the GLC to produce all those plans and requirements?

Mrs. Chalker: As usual the hon. Gentleman is a little anticipatory. I shall be coming to that point in a few minutes, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient.
It is not right that any Minister in any Government, let alone any chairman of any company, acting responsibly should say that there will never be a change. That is not consistent with some of the changes business must make. We have sought to make as clear as has ever been made in any nationalised industry the nature of the consultation process and the meaning of the strategy document, annual plan and annual report. The passengers' committee will be involved in a wider range of responsibilities than its two predecessors.
I shall discuss the position that underlines the thoughts of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East and some of his friends across the water.

Mr. Peter Snape: I have not said anything yet.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is muttering that he has not said anything yet. In more than 100 hours in Committee he filled a good many Hansard columns.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): He did not say anything then.

Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend's comment may be the view of some hon. Members. I give the hon. Gentleman a crumb of comfort—occasionally, he was trying to be helpful, although I doubt that he is being helpful this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues across the water seem to believe that there cannot be and should not be any change. They appear to be bound up with the view that everything must continue as it has before—there should never be any change of services, even when better services can be provided to meet Londoners' needs. The backdrop to all the discussions on this subject has been a consideration of the services to be provided in the future.
4.45 pm
There must be changes in any dynamic business, which is what LRT should be. The hon. Gentleman and his friends must become used to the idea that no business can serve its customers unless it is prepared to face change. The way in which the hon. Gentleman would dictate the detailed content of the strategic statements, annual plans and reports is not a matter for Ministers to decide.

Ministers should give clear guidance, set out the objectives clearly and agree the overall financial plans, but LRT's management must work out the details.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because it is better to ask this question now. She made accusations about people across the water and change. In my constituency I have had the privilege of opening a brand new railway station at West Ham; two more stations on the north London line have been installed; and a new crosstown link has been opened and is to be electrified. All those measures were instigated and financed by the GLC. With such examples, about which the hon. Lady should know, how can she make such accusations?

Mrs. Chalker: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the clauses designed to enable the London boroughs to contribute to the improvement of stations, thereby taking over the role which the hon. Gentleman described as having been carried out by the GLC, with British Rail. Those friends across the water in the GLC have always wanted changes for extra provision, but they have never been prepared to accept that, from time to time, some services may change and new demands might force a change on the pattern of services provided for Londoners' transport.

Mr. Spearing: Cuts.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman intervened earlier and is now beginning to chide me. I said that it would not be right for Ministers to dictate the day-to-day running or planning of LRT. It is not for the Secretary of State or me to dictate precisely the contents of the annual plan, which is what the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East seek to do.
I have noticed what the hon. Gentleman wanted in the past. We have listened to a number of interesting assertions in Committee and, perhaps more worryingly, outside the Committee. One statement I wish to make to Londoners today needs repeating, because the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has not accepted what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said several weeks ago on this issue. Although I believe that it is wrong for me to try to forecast precisely the contents of LRT's business plan, I can give Londoners an assurance about what it will not contain. That plan will not contain a list of 33 tube stations and 32 bus routes that Londoners have been told will close when the Government assume responsibility. That is no part of the plan for LRT. We have no plans to close any stations or any routes. We have no hit list and we have never had such a list. The claims that have emanated from the GLC have been without foundation. They have worried people, just as the GLC's other campaigns have done.
There is no hit list and there will not be, and the financial provision that the Government have approved gives no support to the GLC's allegations about the future of LT. For 1984–85 the Government have approved £300 million of subsidy to LT, which is close to LT's budget figure in its three-year plan. There never was and never has been any truth in the scurrilous rumours put about by Capital, the GLC-financed campaign wagon with Les Huckfield, a former Labour Member for Parliament, at its head.
We are saying to London that there is no hit list and that there is £300 million of subsidy for LT to use wisely. It is up to LT, and LRT in the future, to plan its way on the basis of that £300 million subsidy.
I told the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East that I wanted to get some facts on the record. I have told him exactly what we are doing with this new clause and that I do not believe that his amendment is necessary or desirable. I wish to emphasise what we are doing in the Bill because it is easy to get Londoners' involvement out of perspective. The main strategic planning document for LRT is the clause 7 statement. Plainly, the annual plan will fit in with it. The strategic statement will undergo full consultation and provide a long-term planning framework. It is because we believe and agree that there is merit in ensuring an annual flow of information about LRT's plans, particularly about the annual debate on the ratepayers' levy, that we have decided that there should be an annual plan. It can focus on the year ahead. I expect it to cover a slightly longer period and to look further forward while giving detail of the year ahead. It will clearly be concerned with LRT's performance and its forecast of its business performance for the year ahead. We do not want the rigid requirements that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to impose. They are not necessary for LRT.
I emphasised more than once in Committee that the 1983 requirements, to which the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred in his intervention, were drawn up in a completely different context. It was one where the local authorities had to make an annual determination of revenue subsidy in the light of guidance given to them by the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State's guidance was to be given consistently across LTE and the PTEs there had to be some reasonably well formulated basis on which decisions could be taken. That was the context for the requirement for the three-year rolling plan by LTE and the PTEs in other areas of the country together with the stipulation that there would be some assessment of the benefits resulting from their plans. It was not in the context of the Government setting the level of available subsidy for LRT. That is why I say that that detail is not required in the same way in the future for LRT.
LRT will be a nationalised industry. As I said at the beginning, in the Bill we are going much further in requiring a specific planning regime and the publication of various documents relating to the business than for any other nationalised industry. Clearly, LRT will provide financial projections in the light of its policies. The annual plan will be consistent with the clause 7 statement and will fit in with the corporate plans. I shall not commit the detail of LRT's three-year plan. That is for LRT's management, just as LT has done it in the past. I do not believe that it is necessary to specify that the annual plan should contain information on services and fares, when there is a similar requirement for the year ahead provided in clause 29.
If the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East takes clause 29 together with the new clause, he will see that he has all that he requires in his amendment. He seeks to overdo it again with his second amendment when he says that the plan should contain information about costs. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been. Perhaps he has never had to draw up one of these plans. It would be impossible to put forward a viable plan, or for it to be in any way complete, unless it contained that information in

the first place. It is therefore superfluous and unnecessary to require it in legislation. The hon. Gentleman also wants wording about benefits included. It may well be that LRT will include information resulting from cost-benefit analyses, but it is only one of the many techniques that can be deployed. It happens to be one used by LT and the PTEs at present, but it is not necessarily the best or the only way to assess the value of services. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to look wider than to insist on that inclusion.
If that amendment were carried, it would make it difficult to make comparisons with BR's performance because there is no direct comparability with the way in which it does its planning and that currently done by LT. As the hon. Gentleman knows from our previous debate, we wish to achieve better integration, so common assessment may be part of that. Despite his current thinking, it may not be the wisest thing to do to cut out that possibility by insisting on a specific inclusion in the new clause.
The hon. Gentleman's third amendment deals with consultation. There is full scope for consultation in the strategy statements. There will be the usual continual exchange of views and information with interested parties on the other documents that LRT will produce.
There is no time for a useful or meaningful process of consultation with the public on the annual business cycle. I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman what that cycle is, because I do not believe that he has understood what happens throughout the annual process. February will see a debate in the House on the ratepayers' levy order. Between March and June we shall have LRT in consultation on the strategy statements in those years where there is to be such a statement. In June LRT will publish its annual report and accounts. LRT will also publish a strategy statement in the years when there is to be one. In September we shall have approval of LRT's corporate plan. In October-November LRT's annual business plan will be published. In November there will be the announcement of the external financing limit for LRT, and it will then begin to finalise its budget for the following year. In December LRT will receive its investment allocation and the Secretary of State will publish the ratepayers' levy order for debate in the following February.
That is an extensive and thorough programme of consultation. We should not seek to tie the hands of LRT's management and restrict it further by detailing some completely unnecessary and superfluous parts of the annual business plan. To require LRT to publish that annual business plan will mean that it will be subject to the most rigorous statutory regime for planning, consultation and information of any of the nationalised industries. The plan will be published every autumn in good time for the annual parliamentary debate on the ratepayers' levy. No one can claim that the public will not have the information that they need and no one can claim that LRT will be unaccountable. Our proposals mean that LRT will be more accountable to London travellers than ever before and that the information will be more readily available.
I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment to new clause 10 and accept that the new clause answers the point that they made in Committee and is a major and generous provision in its own right.

Mr. Snape: The speech that we have just heard from the Minister of State is in many respects a typical one from the Government — that if it is necessary to make concessions it is also necessary to conceal the concessions by any amount of bluff and bluster from the Dispatch Box. It is all too sadly typical of Ministers that the speech that we have just heard showed more concern with scoring imaginary political points, even before I had contributed a word to the debate on behalf of the Opposition, than with attempting to explain why it was felt necessary to bring forward the new clause.
5 pm
The Minister of State asked Opposition Members to consider new clause 10 carefully. She said that I was never satisfied and that whatever proposals she made I would denounce and reject them as unsatisfactory. After Christmas I spent many hours with the hon. Lady discussing the Bill. We sat late into the evening on many occasions. I confess, to echo the right hon. Lady's words, that I usually went home unsatisfied. But surely the role of an Opposition is to be dissatisfied; a role to which the hon. Lady will become accustomed on the happy day when we can remove this bunch of frauds from Government offices throughout London. [Interruption.]
Perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport is concerned at being described as one of a bunch of frauds. I shall come round to him in a moment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is concerned at being left out, in which case I shall certainly see to him. I am sure that if I had used unparliamentary language, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would have called me to order.
I believe that the Government were elected on a fraudulent prospectus. The Bill before us is fraudulent. The Minister of State's speech was fraudulent. I am eminently justified in saying that of anyone responsible for that triple act of fraudulence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I shall anticipate the hon. Gentleman and say that he is steering very near the wind.

Mr. Spearing: rose——

Mr. Snape: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Has not the hon. Lady—I am sure of her integrity—been deluded? A moment ago she said that London Regional Transport would be more accountable to users than ever before. Has she not been defrauded into thinking that that is so? How can London Members of Parliament ever substitute for the scrutiny and activity by elected Greater London councillors of London Regional Transport'?

Mr. Snape: To answer my hon. Friend, perhaps it is a case of self-delusion rather than fraud in relation to the Minister of State, although not the Secretary of State. I am always careful in our debates to separate the motivation that spurs on the two of them.
To talk of LRT being a dynamic organisation stretches the Opposition's credulity. During his long career in the House the Secretary of State for Transport has had much to say about the nationalised industries. He has not used the word "dynamic" in relation to them, yet we are expected to believe that that description will apply to LRT.
In dealing with an earlier point made by my hon. Friend the member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the

facilities provided by the GLC, and in reply to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) about the extra services that it provides, the Minister of State said that the London boroughs would take care of those facilities. I do not wish to sail too close to the wind which you have warned me is gathering offshore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but does the Minister of State really expect us to believe that when the Government are engaged in reducing the money available to local authorities?
The Government are engaged in a rate-capping exercise against local authorities which engage in such expense. Is the Minister really saying that the clause will enable London boroughs to subsidise bus and rail services that cross borough boundaries? If so, she had better write another new clause into the Bill. It is news to the Opposition.
We know what the Bill does not contain, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be trading on your habitual tolerance to say that the hon. Lady was moving a little wide of the new clause when she said that the Government did not have a hit list of stations to be closed or bus routes to be withdrawn. She implied that the list—I have seen it—was a figment of someone's fertile imagination across the river, as she put it. But none of us has ever said in the House or, so far as I am aware, outside it, that the hit list is in an office in Marsham street.
All hon. Members know, although some Conservative Members would be unwilling to confess it, that it is not necessary to provide a long hit list of threatened services when one controls the purse strings of a nationalised industry. What will happen to LRT happens now to nationalised industries such as British Rail, for which the Secretary of State also has responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to say that a railway line should close.
We discussed the Settle to Carlisle line a few weeks ago —I hope that that is not too far away from the Greater London area, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No one is saying that the Government are detailing the lines, services and bus routes to be withdrawn. They will merely ensure, by reducing the amount of finance available to London Regional Transport, that the nasty and squalid decisions to close the lines and withdraw the services will be taken by someone else. That is the usual cowardly way out that the Government adopt when dealing with nationalised industries.
The Minister of State also talked about how ready she was to consider the points raised by the Opposition in Committee in relation to the publication of the plans. Those hon. Members who, like me, spent much time in Committee will remember the discussion on whether the word "plans" should be in the Bill. It was thought initially that the word "statement" would be sufficient, and there was some banter across the Floor about when a statement could be a plan, and vice versa.
I intervened briefly in Committee on a group of amendments, the principal one of which was moved by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). I said:
I am looking to the Minister of State for some reasons why the provisions of the 1983 Act"—
that is, the Transport Act 1983—
which required annual plans from the GLC, have been torn up?
The Minister of State replied:
It is not necessary to write that into the legislation when we are forming a system with the clear intention that the annual


business planning cycle will be carried out as it is for all other nationalised industries." — [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 February 1984; c. 416.]
That is not quite what she said today, when she fairly admitted that the new clause was a concession and a movement away from the Government's original position.
The Minister, however, took exception to our amendments (a), (b) and (c), which merely seek to widen the Government's belated concession a little. On many occasions in Committee, and again in the Chamber, the hon. Lady said that the matters outlined in the amendments were better dealt with by management and that such detail should not be dealt with here. I hope that Conservative Members will agree that it is entirely legitimate in relation to LRT to inquire, as amendment (b) provides, about
the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them, or by agreement with them, by other persons".
I do not think that that is delving too deeply into day-to-day management details.
Similarly, amendment (b) provides:
The plan shall be accompanied by estimates of … the cost to London Regional Transport of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals".
I do not think that that could be regarded as interfering unduly in the day-to-day management functions of LRT.
On fares and services, the Minister of State rightly says that there is provision in clause 29 for such matters to be detailed. I gently remind her—I always try to be gentle on these occasions—that the clause merely requires that the local authorities and other bodies be informed annually of the future level of fares. We all know what that means. It will be the kind of consultation undertaken by other nationalised industries such as British Rail. A fare increase will be announced once a year. That is the only consultation that generally takes place now and I believe that that will be the situation under clause 29. That is why we seek to amend the new clause.
I should not have thought that the Minister of State or even her boss could take exception to any of the provisions in the amendments. We were careful not to try to push the Minister of State too far, as she accused me earlier of doing. We were extremely careful in drafting amendments (a) and (b). In fact, the wording is not ours at all. It is lifted entirely from the 1983 Act, for which the Minister herself voted, so there is nothing particularly revolutionary about the amendments. I am therefore somewhat at a loss to understand why the Minister of State was so indignant about the amendments before any Opposition Members had even spoken to them. If the Secretary of State intends to explain that when he winds up the debate I shall be 'delighted to hear his comments. It is always interesting to hear him explain legislation for which he is responsible, so I can hug myself with anticipatory glee in the knowledge that he will enlighten the House later in the proceedings.
5.15 pm
We believe that the new clause is unsatisfactory as it stands. That does not mean that the situation would be satisfactory even if the Government accepted all three amendments. Amendment (c), for which we are entirely guilty, also does not place any particularly onerous burdens on LRT. It merely provides that the authority
shall consult about such proposals contained in the plan with

(a) the local authorities of greater London; and
(b) the Passengers Committee."

I did not think that the Conservative party would take exception to that, but I must have been wrong, judging from the Minister's earlier diatribe, which was vitriolic by her standards.

Mr. John Maples: As the hon. Gentleman will know, one of the present board's reservations about the new proposals is on the amount of consultation required. If the provisions for the statement under the Bill require the authority to consult 33 local authorities every year as well, I should have thought that there would be a serious danger of the board having nothing to do but consult.

Mr. Snape: That is a reasonable point. It is always more comfortable for the management of any industry, public or private, not to have to consult anyone. The more people who have to be consulted, the more work is involved. Most nationalised industry management is as reluctant as private industry management to consult the people who work for it or the customers who use its services. It is thus natural that the board would be somewhat reluctant to embrace a wider consultative procedure.
As we made clear many times in Committee, however, the difference here is that there will be no elected tier of government between the Secretary of State and the professional managers of LRT. The consultation envisaged in amendment (c) is therefore all the more necessary.

Mr. Maples: rose——

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman has had one bite at this already. I wish to conclude my remarks shortly, as I hope that the debate will be over in an hour and a half.
The new clause is certainly a concession and I understand the Minister's feelings about having to make it. The Government have had a bad couple of days. There was the concession for pensioners yesterday and the ILEA concession earlier today, so it is understandable that the Minister should feel a little cross at having to make another concession now.

Mrs. Chalker: I am not cross.

Mr. Snape: I know that the Minister is not cross now, but she went through an impressive display of synthetic indignation earlier on. Three goals against the Government in a matter of hours must be a little upsetting. It was clear from the start that the legislation was appalling, but in our habitual desire to be placatory and to improve the legislation we tentatively suggested the three amendments, two of which are drawn from the 1983 Act.
In the 1983 Act the Government laid down that the metropolitan councils and London Transport had to produce three-year plans containing information about the level of transport services and the level and structure of fares and charges. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us why things are so different for LRT. If such plans were required of democratically elected authorities in London and elsewhere by the Government's own legislation, what is so special about the management of LRT that it should be outside those provisions?
If the Bill becomes law, the only democratic body that will have any say in London's transport facilities will be this place. I do not wish to go over our previous debates on this point, but if there was any agreement between both sides of the Committee it was on the fact that the


provisions for debating such matters in this House are palpably inadequate. I realise that that measure of agreement did not go so far as voting for an Opposition amendment, but there was at least some agreement about the unsatisfactory nature of debating these detailed matters.
The Minister is now saying that, given that there will be professional management, democratic accountability is no longer necessary or needed——

Mrs. Chalker: No.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Lady says that that is not the case. Whether or not she knows it, that will be the effect of resisting these amendments. I admit that the impact has been somewhat ameliorated by new clause 10. I do not wish to be too rude about the Minister, but she was not as helpful in Committee as she implies. I do not complain about that. The proper standard of debate is what we have come to expect from the hon. Lady. Nevertheless, the concession in new clause 10, though welcome, regrettably does not go far enough.
I have not mentioned the fares question in any detail, nor do I wish to do so. The Minister has said that fares under LRT will not have to rise beyond the rate of inflation. If so, LRT should be required to produce fairly detailed plans setting out how it intends to maintain fare increases at or about the level of inflation. Is that an unreasonable demand to place on professional management? The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) probably thinks that it is — [Interruption.] Perhaps he does not. Will the hon. Gentleman nod if he agrees and shake his head if he disagrees, rather than doing it the other way round, because he knows from our debates in Committee how easy it is to confuse me?
If, as the Opposition believe, the main reason for the Bill is to cut the amount of public support for London Transport by raising fares and cutting services, Parliament has a right to know the basis on which those decisions are made. It is not unreasonable to ask that the amendments be accepted so that that basis can be known.
It is a welcome relief that at last this supposedly free market Government have admitted that some planning is necessary and that occasional statements will not do. But, even with the benefit of that dawn of common sense, the plans could be drawn up in a way that is virtually meaningless. Unless there is a specific requirement on LRT to produce meaningful plans—in the same way as the 1983 Act requires the metropolitian counties to produce their plans—which contain the things envisaged in our amendments, its annual business plan will be no more than a budget. It will therefore be impossible for hon. Members who take an interest in these matters to have any detailed discussion in the short time available.
We look forward to the Secretary of State's return so that he can reply to the debate. We hope that the quality of his reply will have improved somewhat since the end of our Committee proceedings. We still believe that these three eminently reasonable amemdments, two of which are extracted from the Transport Act 1983, are well worth supporting.

Mr. Peter Fry: I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), especially his opening diatribe when the words "fraud" and "fraudulent" were much used. It lies ill in the hon. Gentleman's mouth to talk

of fraudulent behaviour when the GLC, while pretending to do its best for London, was increasing the rates of many businesses that could ill afford them—costing jobs and increasing the rates of many people who never used public transport. I therefore hope that such language is not necessary.
The hon. Gentleman is one of those Opposition spokesmen who continually demand concessions, but when they get them see them as a form of weakness. That is not a constructive way in which to oppose any piece of legislation.
I was a member of the former Select Committee which investigated in considerable detail the problems of London's transport and compared it with many other cities. Both sides of the Committee quoted continually from the report. There is a weakness in the Bill, which is outlined in the amendments. I genuinely believe that in their attempt to control the amount of money to subsidise London's public transport, and because they have set their face against any form of local government representation, the Government have led themselves into a highly complicated system of strategies and plans. There will be a certain amount of consultation, but they have had to refuse other consultation. As a result, they are depending far too much on Members of this House to deal with matters which in all other parts of the country are properly the concern of local government representatives.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State knows that to be my view. I therefore have some sympathy with those who make that charge. Far from continually adding to the plans and statements that London Regional Transport must draw up, we ought to be allowing it to get on with the job of running London's public transport. If the people concerned must continually ask everybody else what they think and are forced to look over their shoulders, I sincerely believe that they will not use their time for the purposes for which they are employed.
This arises from the fact that we have established a kind of administration that will be unique in the United Kingdom. When the Select Committee looked at this, it recommended that there should be some kind of local government input. We did not say that it had to be controlled by the London boroughs—in fact, we looked at a somewhat wider area than the GLC boundary—but we felt that a body should be established to which certain plans should be referred—perhaps even budgets — so that there was a clear distinction between the input from those who represented the people of London and those who run London Transport.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that LRT is at one stage removed from those who are running the tubes and buses, but neither of those organisations has the kind of input about which I and, to be fair, Opposition Members have been talking. We do not always disagree on transport matters, although we may disagree on most other things.
5.30 pm
Therefore, although I shall of course support new clause 10, I am afraid that we are going to find, as this Bill passes into law, that we shall continually be bedevilled by having made the fundamental error in the first place of not allowing in the control and discussion of London's public transport, a rightful place for locally elected representatives. I say that as one who supported the Government on the Rates Bill. I was not one of the rebels.
Furthermore, I believe that, if we continually set up in this country all kinds of public bodies, to some of which local councillors can belong and to some of which they cannot, we shall not have any consistent form of administration. We have not yet said how on earth we are going to deal with the metropolitan counties when they come to be abolished. We should perhaps have taken a little more time thinking about the way in which this Bill should be framed and the kind of new institutions that we were going to set up.
I am entirely in favour of the three-year strategy, but it must be an effective policy, a rolling programme. This is desperately needed in London; it is in many other parts of the country, but particularly in London. When we were examining this matter we found that London was suffering from years of neglect, that the swing of the political pendulum meant that there was a start in one direction, then a new administration came into the place over the river and the policy went in a totally different direction. It was because the Select Committee, which was an all-party Committee, felt very strongly indeed that it was necessary to take party politics out of London's transport that we made the recommendations which I think are still the basis of much of this Bill.
I think that I have made it clear where I differ from the Government over the way in which they have interpreted our Select Committee report. It is perhaps too late in the proceedings to move further amendments, but I felt it right to put my views on record, and I believe that they are shared by all the members of the Select Committee who signed that particular report.

Mr. Simon Hughes: It must obviously be welcome that, from the position which the Government held when we started debating this Bill both on Second Reading and in Committee, when there was a long debate as to whether we should not have more planning for transport in London than was provided by a scheme which only allowed for a statement, an outline, a very vague idea of general proposals as to what should be in the planning intentions of the new transport authority — the Secretary of State and his managers, London Regional Transport—we should now have a plan.
The hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) was one who supported the amendment first moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), which said—it was the London Transport Executive which first made the point to us as members of the Committee—that what is needed is the ability to plan in detail and present a plan that can be discussed from year to year. We started by saying that this must be at least every three years.
Then we accepted — the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) was quite right to say that that was the direction which the all-party Committee said should be followed — that there needed to be annual statements which were the subject first of consultation and thereafter of implementation, so that at all times the planning of transport in London would not be bedevilled by the two things that had bedevilled it for many years.
One was the lack of strategic direction. It is a fact that a criticism that the Government could rightfully make of a local authority planning function was that it was subject

to changes of direction with every major change of political control. That will inevitably be the case if local authorities are allowed to retain control of public transport.
The other major problem was that increasingly in recent years, every time a plan was embarked upon, there came an intervention from on high which said, "Stop," or, "You cannot have that amount of money," or, "You are going to have to adjust the amount of the travel supplementary grant," for example. All that the planners, the people managing London Transport, might be able to do was liable to be thrown aside by an intervention, which made planning impossible. Quite clearly, that was a totally illogical and clearly unsatisfactory way in which to organise the planning of transport in London.
It is clear to all of those who have followed this debate that the Liberal party, like the Labour party, resists entirely the idea that London should suddenly become the one place in Britain which, because of its capital city significance, has a nationalised industry as opposed to a local authority as the planning authority. We resist, and shall continue to resist, the idea that the Secretary of State or his successors, supported by their own appointees, should make the decisions. We resist this particularly because it means that in the direction, in planning terms, of London Transport, the necessary account need not be taken of other plans that are formulated for the area which we are talking about.
We debated many amendments in Committee. There were amendments designed to oblige the Secretary of State, as transport authority and the London Regional Transport board, to look at documents such as the Greater London development plan, and to fit the planning of London's transport into the other statutory plans which circumscribe what is going to go on in this capital city —where the people are going to be living, where the houses are, where the green belt may or may not begin and end. It is no good divorcing transport and its planning from the planning of the other services.
One of our fundamental criticisms concerns the problem when a nationalised industry suddenly replaces a local authority. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, very validly, when one starts creating a different authority for each different service the danger is that each body planning a service gets autonomy and authenticity of its own, and sets out upon its own course without taking account of the other things going on around it.
When we started off with no indication other than a strategy statement, with information given separately about the plans in relation to fares, with no opportunity for consultation on a year-to-year rolling plan, we were rightly highly critical. That is why the concession that has been made, the pulling back from the brink, is so welcome. Obviously, it is the second major concession of this sort —which, happily, will result in a better Bill—made by the Government since the Bill started its passage through the House. But it does not, of course, go far enough; that is why we support amendments to this clause in the names of Labour Members.
The thing that matters to people who use the transport, in whose interest the transport is being planned, is the way in which fares and the structure of fares are to be decided. They are the things which the consultative bodies —there are at the moment two for transport in London, but they will become one — want to be consulted about. They ought to be part of that planning process.
One of the thrusts of the attack from the Opposition on this Bill is that the traditional forum for the passenger, the user, to be consulted and to have his or her say has been reduced in effectiveness. There is to be no passenger representative on the board of London Regional Transport, no representative with specific accountability on any particular issue—although the Minister conceded that she would make sure, if she could, that one of the people on the board had a particular interest in the concerns of the disabled; that, obviously, is welcome. There will be nobody whose specific interest it is to ensure that the consumer voice — the voice of the fare-paying passenger, normally the London resident—is represented in the planning process, and the fares structure matters greatly in that process.
There have been changes of great relevance in recent years in transport matters, many of them determined by where one lives. I have previously said that, depending on whether one lives 200 yards south or north of the Elephant and Castle, one pays a different fare within the whole of the central London area. Obviously there must be divisions between zones; unless we adopt the Paris system, which provides for a much larger central area, and, under which, only if one strays to the far edges of it does one pay a supplement. Using a single ticket, that system is much easier to operate, and perhaps—although such a system is not to be adopted—there can be consultation about that.
It is obvious that we cannot seek to lay down here and now every jot and tittle of every line of every paragraph of every page of every plan, but it is essential that any plan makes clear the obligations on the transport managers. Why is it necessary for the plan to be in considerable detail and for there to be a proper consultation process involving local authorities and a passengers committee, with the details of fares and structures all being clearly defined? The answer is that it will be impossible for anybody, on behalf of the consumer, the passenger, to challenge a failure by LRT to do something that it should be doing; that possibility is ruled out by another provision in the Bill.
That power will not reside in the consumer. Nobody — be it Bromley council, a passenger consultative group, a group of ratepayers or a body of transport users — will be able to challenge the matter in court by saying, "LRT is failing in its duty." The Government are taking the major constitutional step of depriving the public, in transport terms, of that right.
This has never previously been a nationalised industry; buses and tubes have represented a local authority service. It is all the more important that the plans should involve people and should go into considerable detail. That is the major reason why the planning system should be as provided for in the amendment.

Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman says that never before have the buses and tubes been organised in this way. I believe that for many years prior to 1969 they were organised as an authority appointed by the Secretary of State and responsible to him. The hon. Gentleman's memory may be longer than mine, but I cannot recollect whether there were many complaints at that time of any lack of democratic control or that proper public services were not being provided because of a lack of accountability. Does he have evidence to show that there were such criticisms at that time?

Mr. Hughes: The Select Committee pointed out that there was enormous advantage in having on the transport authority representatives of the user, because that prevented problems arising because of decisions being made without the user's participation. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) will recall that the structure proposed in the Select Committee report would have included the Secretary of State and his nominees, local authority nominees, consumer nominees and others.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was a time when, under LRT's predecessor, certain services had a direct line of command from the Minister of the day. But that system was thought to be unsatisfactory. There followed a change of system — which the hon. Gentleman argues resulted in too many political swings —and today the consensus is that a substantial part of the management of public transport should be in the hands of those who use it. They are the people who suffer when things go wrong. They pay for the service, so they have an interest in making sure that it meets their needs.
In terms of hours per year, we in this House are already the most overworked democracy of any. That means that we will not do justice to the 7 million people who live in London, to those who come in from outside Greater London and to the many who visit the capital city. We will not be able to do justice to them in the short time available for this subject.
The Minister set out the annual cycle of consultation. While it is a sensible cycle, in that it is important to know when the various stages of the process occur, we need to have added to it the opportunity for a continuing debate about London transport so that it benefits from clearly laid out plans in which people can participate. The public must have a say. The more we can plan and the more the public can have a say in the plan, the better London transport will be.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I have pleasure in taking part in this sparkling and electrifying debate——

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman will change all that.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: —which has been enlivened through 120 hours or so of discussion by the magnificent contributions of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who told the Committee ad nauseam of the views and prejudices of the Labour party in approaching anything that has a remote connection with business interests and efficiency.
It was slightly sad, perhaps, as we listened to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, that we had to hear yet again a speech which one could probably take word for word from what he said on every clause in Standing Committee. However, having got used to it, we could settle down and enjoy it yet again.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East can for once take substantial credit, because it is in response to what he wanted that the Government have introduced this clause. It is to meet his desires and wishes that the commitments have been laid out in clause 10 in a way which, to some of us, was not entirely necessary.
The clause is a supplement to clause 7, and everything that the hon. Gentleman said in criticism of clause 10—for example, that it does not include consultation, that the process happens annually and that the plans are not given


in sufficient detail—must be read in the context of the fact that, every three years, LRT will have to set out, in accordance with the terms of clause 7, precisely those details and to go through precisely those consultation processes which the hon. Gentleman is complaining it does not have to do under clause 10.
As a matter of business reality, it is not sensible to ask the board of any business — be it a nationalised or private industry or something that is or is not directly responsible to an elected body, whether that body be the GLC or this House—to go through a lengthy annual period of consultation in setting out its plans for the following year within the overall strategic bounds of a plan which it has already provided. That is a three-yearly plan, and is already written, as an obligation, into the statute. I fail to understand the enormous heat, vigour and determination with which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East managed to drive his speech.
Likewise, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), speaking on behalf of the Liberal party, did not seem to have the business realism that is necessary when dealing with what is essentially a nationalised industry. That is where Opposition Members have failed to grasp the reality behind the clause, which is that the Government are setting up a business administration to run the business of administering London transport.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: That is what we object to.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Of course it is. That is what Socialism objects to. It does not like businesses in the private or the public sector. It does not like businesses independent of Government. It does not like businesses which the Labour party cannot run. The Labour party is looking for power. It wants to interfere in every detail of life in Britain. It is trying to take overall control of everything that happens to every British citizen. Labour Members do not like business. They do not like people to run business or to have the opportunity to take their own initiative in business. They do not like anything about business.

Mr. Corbyn: It occurs to me that higher fares would mean higher costs for businesses within London which use the transport system. It also occurs to me that if a system is being run on business lines, the motive that is driving it along is profit rather than efficiency in the provision of a service for all the people in London. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to how many services will be destroyed by this new motive behind the administration of London's transport system.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is typical of Labour Members' attitude throughout. I understand the reasons behind what the hon. Gentleman says but I heartily disapprove of and cordially dislike it because it stands for all that I am against.
The hon. Gentleman made one point which has some merit—I give it that—when he said that higher transport costs would increase the cost to businesses and individuals. Of course they will. Higher travel costs will do precisely that. Against that must be balanced the costs that businesses have to bear if they are the ratepayers who

are providing the money which the hon. Gentleman's friends across the river are lavishly spreading across Greater London. They are being ruined by the current policy.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that to take away that burden from people who do not use the transport and to put it on to people who do is somehow wrong.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Let me finish my point and I shall give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to put both feet more firmly into the bog in which he is already standing. [Interruption.] Lest anyone misunderstandsme, I mean the mire into which he is sinking. The hon. Gentleman is again misrepresenting every word I say.

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall give way in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman talked about higher travel costs as though they were an inevitable consequence. They are not. I do not generally like to give credit to Mr. Livingstone and his friends but it is a perfectly legitimate business proposition to have lower fares to increase the volume of fare-paying travellers and thereby to increase both the revenue within the system and the advantages to those who are using it. It by no means follows that a proper business decision to run London transport efficiently will lead to higher costs. It will do so only if the present volume of travel can take an additional cost and thereby reduce the losses which are otherwise being made. That is a business decision and should be treated as such, not on the basis of Socialist or other dogma irrespective of the realities.

Mr. Corbyn: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's dislike of anyone having to pay higher rates in London. To be fair to the GLC and others he should perhaps give the Government some credit for increasing rates in London by taking £500 million away from London's local authorities in rate support and block grant. It would be much fairer if he approached the matter in an even-handed way.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would do it. His nose is hardly above the mud. Every time he speaks he sinks lower. We are now talking about the Government cutting the rate support grant. May I have your indulgence for a second, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I would have some difficulty replying to that intervention within the terms of the new clause that we are discussing?
The rate support grant has to be cut because of gross overspending in many Labour-controlled councils, which was destroying whole areas of this great city of ours. Businesses can no longer afford to operate here and the life style of people who live here has been destroyed because they can no longer afford the rates which subsidise the unbelievable collection of people whom the GLC has decided to subsidise with ratepayers' money. There is the association of lesbian women in Haringey—or whatever it is. That is an incredible burden on taxpayers—not the hon. Gentleman any more than anybody else.

Mr. Corbyn: I pay my rates.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: So do I. It is not coming from me or the hon. Gentleman any more than anybody else.


I pay rates in and outside Greater London, so I have a perfectly good balance of experience, as does the hon. Gentleman. The burden is being spread across the country, particularly Greater London, and that is completely inexcusable. If they were asked, I am sure that 99 per cent. of Londoners would say that they did not want to subsidise lesbian groups.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have perhaps had enough of lesbian ladies for the moment and should return to the new clause.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was led astray by the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary logic.
The new clause is largely in response to the demands of Labour Members. It is a useful addition, because, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes to make his annual report on London Regional Transport, it will help us all to have an annual plan prepared by the LRT board which will enable us better to assess the progress or otherwise — if it goes the way of some nationalised industries—of that organisation. Therefore, I welcome the new clause and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on being sufficiently big-hearted to introduce it, particularly as the suggestion did not come entirely from Conservative Members. I wish that that magnanimity and generous-heartedness could be shown by Labour Members and that we might have less carping criticism when everything that was requested is done. However, that is not to be the case.
The Opposition have tabled two amendments to the new clause. One requires the consultation that I have briefly mentioned. It is difficult to articulate the astonishment that I feel that anybody could seriously suggest that when an annual plan is being considered within a three-year strategic overall plan, there can be consultation with all the people whom the Labour party would like to see the London Regional Transport committee consulting. There would not be a moment left to run the business or time to consider and make decisions that any board of any business ought to make if it were to spend 11½ months consulting the people whom Labour Members wish to see involved.
Consultation under new clause 10 is neither relevant nor desirable and is part of the usual Socialist approach. The Labour party is interested only in maintaining the cosmetic front of democratic consultation and involvement when the reality is neither democratic nor true consultation and is nothing but a chaotic anarchy. As usual where Labour Members are concerned, the matter ends up with everybody taking no notice of what is said in consultation and plugging on under the GLC with their own particular political philosophy.
Amendment (b) deals not with consultation but with something which is probably less desirable. The amendment requires such detail that there would be no scope for variation or for meeting the needs that might arise in the following year. I know that there is sound sense behind the front that the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Corbyn) likes to put on when making his eloquent and long-winded speeches. I am sure that he will acknowledge that it is highly undesirable that a committee should be pinned down to stating every decision that it will make within the next twelve months.
We are trying to create a regional transport board which will run transport in London in the best interests of

Londoners and in a way that is not too expensive for the taxpayer. There will be a fine balance to be struck between providing a public service and doing so in a cost-efficient and effective way. That cannot be done if we pin the board down annually to a series of detailed decisions, some of which should not be taken months in advance.
I applaud my right hon. Friend for his new clause, which adds another excellent facet to a basically excellent Bill. I trust that the new clause will be warmly supported and the Opposition amendments defeated.

6 pm

Mr. Spearing: The speech by the hon. Member for Upminster, (Sir N. Bonsor) illustrates a paradox which is often found in the speeches of Conservative Members and is one of the reasons why they are ruining the country. It is clear that the hon. Member for Upminster does not often use what he calls "the transport".

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Wrong.

Mr. Spearing: I am glad to hear that, but the hon. Gentleman's constituents will not be glad to hear that he does not consider that they should be consulted on transport plans.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Rubbish.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has just said so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not believe that my constituents should not or will not be consulted at all. But I believe that they are much too sensible to wish to be consulted on every decision which LRT has to take in running the business in their interests.

Mr. Spearing: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not run his business on those lines. My hon. Friend's amendment does not suggest that people should be consulted on every decision. However, for instance, if London Regional Transport decided that it did not make good business sense to run the District line to Upminster and that it would turn the trains round at Barking—I do not suggest that it will do so—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituents would want to have a word about that, and quite right too.
The hon. Gentleman is hopelessly adrift about the difference between a public service and a legitimate private business. The private business offers commodities or services for sale, as it so wishes, and the customers may make themselves available. A public service has to make available services that may not be profitable. That is the basis of the Bill. There are to be Exchequer grants and ratepayers' subsidies to London Regional Transport. I suggest that two thirds of the bus routes, or more, lose money. Many of the railway routes lose money too, especially towards the end of the line. If they were run on business lines, they would cease to exist at all.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right that it makes good business sense, as he would say, to have as many people as possible travelling at a reasonably low fare so that the greatest possible public service is provided and the maximum return is made on the capital. That is good business in the interests of the public. It is public business, not private business. The hon. Gentleman should keep that distinction clear. I believe that I am the first speaker in this debate who was not a member of the Committee club. [Interruption.] I beg the pardon of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). He is a guest too. Not being


on the Committee, I have only just realised that new clause 10 is a concession. I will now make some of the comments that occurred to me before I realised that that was so.
The new clause is not particularly helpful. It does not go nearly far enough. The Minister of State described it as an annual business plan. That is all very well. However, the new clause refers to
guidance given by the Secretary of State as to the form and content of the plan".
In other words, it will not be the plan of London Regional Transport; it will be the Secretary of State's plan. Those words would not appear at the end of the clause if centralised bureaucracy did not intend to exercise its powers. If that is no so, no doubt the Ministers will tell us why those words were included.
My second point is fundamental. This annual business plan—the word "business" can be interpreted in widely differing ways, as I have just illustrated—will not be operating within the existing structure. There is now a Greater London development plan, which is the responsibility of the GLC. If the Government get their way, there will be no GLC and no Greater London development plan. The only dynamic organisation with influence upon planning in London will probably be London Regional Transport.
For most people, it is the existence, reliability and cost of public transport that determines the accessibility of an area. Accessibility to some extent determines the activity and economic life of a zone or area. The public input by way of transport has the power to change land values. At the moment, land values are determined by planning consents. Without a strategic plan—if the Government get their way there will be planning only at borough level —it will not be easy to plan for London as a whole and to make sure that we get the best out of existing plant and equipment.
That is bad enough within the present transport structure but the future structure of London Regional Transport will not necessarily—indeed, under the Bill it will not—be the same as the structure that we know today. There will be private enclaves. There will be what I referred to yesterday as the ice-cream concessions. Parts of the system will be let off to private business. There may be investment from the City. People may make arrangements with LRT to operate certain areas or zones. There will be a patchwork effect. There may be coordination, but the pattern will be different from that of today. There will be subsidiary undertakings. Someone might make an arrangement with London Regional Transport to run all the routes out of Bromley garage or Upminster garage—if there is one. The Bill encourages LRT to make such arrangements. The investor would make use of the plant and equipment.
Under the Bill there will also be disposal of assets. It may be thought that some garages are not required, and they may be sold off. Buses or engineering facilities may be sold off or leased out on conditions which make it difficult to discern who is making a profit.
More important, LRT might decide that certain routes should be closed or attenuated. The frequency of services might be reduced, or late night services stopped. Reducing the quality of transport in an area would have a profound

effect upon land values, just as, if LRT decided to start a new route, an express service or late night service, land values in the affected area would rise.
The history of public transport in London has been closely involved behind the scenes with the question of land values. The first tubes in London were built not with British but with American capital by Charles Tyson Yerkes, who was drummed out of Chicago for fiddling the tramways and real estate. The value of land in and around Chicago depended substantially on access by the new electric trams. He came to London and the London electric railway companies' lines — not the District and Metropolitan lines—were built with American capital. There is a story, which might be apocryphal but is still a good illustration, of a visitor being taken by an American manager out to Golders Green. They were building a brand new tube station and depot but all around them were green fields and trees. The visitor said, "Gee, why are you building a station here? There are no people." The answer was, "Come back in 10 years' time." We all know what happened to land values when the tubes and bus services were extended to the new suburbs in the 1930s.
The history of the great suburban lines to the north of London is similar. I am afraid that I am not dissuaded that the Bill has something to do with land and land values. It will be only too easy for London Regional Transport, for ostensibly good reasons, to reduce services in one area and increase them in another, whereupon land values and prospects for development will be enhanced for people in the City who might not be directly connected with LRT or a party that is represented in the House. Nevertheless, changes could occur and some people might make profits which would not otherwise have been available.
New clause 10 is relevant to those matters because, although it is not especially comprehensive, it requires some publication of such plans. I assume that the plans will also deal with fares. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that when he replies. The level of fares is not the only issue—are we to retain the excellent travel cards that we now have? Will they be encouraged so that we return to the proper business principles that the hon. Member for Upminster mentioned? Those proper business principles, the precepts of the London Passenger Transport Board set-up in 1933 and the GLC, aim to carry as many people as possible at the lowest possible cost. That is the only way in which public transport can serve London properly.
I have my doubts about the Government's motives in the Bill and have made them clear. New clause 10 might go some way to being a safeguard but I am still uneasy because the Government are resisting our amendments. If their views were fully in line with what I believe to be the proper principles of running public transport and what the Minister calls open government and accountability to the users, the Government would have accepted the amendments. They have not; that is why I am anxious about their motives. I believe that they intend to provide private enterprise opportunities which I regard as opportunities for private profit at public expense.
If I am wrong, I am sure that the Secretary of State will correct me, but the proof will be how London Regional Transport operates. We shall have to see. If and when we have debates on the matter in the House we, like the people of Upminster, Leyton and Newham, will be watching the performance of the new organisation. Most unhappily of all, those people will be writing to and visiting their


Members of Parliament because we shall be the only safeguard between users and the new bureaucracy in Whitehall.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for what happened in Committee, when she and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State allowed the three-year period for the main strategy statement to be implemented. There was an exciting and exhaustive debate on the matter and, as was so often the case, the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) spoke about the plans. The Committee accepted that if the strategy statement could be improved, it would include this plan somewhere in the middle. I am glad that consultations have taken place and that wisdom has shone through. That is wholly consistent with the way in which the Bill has proceeded. I have enjoyed the debates on the Bill, especially because every clause was discussed. Wisdom has won over normal politics. I can remember the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East speaking at great length on new clause 10. He reminds me of the £1 coin which, on the side, says "Decus et tutamen" which means a thing of beauty and a store of value. It is wearing a bit thin now in my pocket.
The Bill provides for consultation and I believe that the requirements on London Regional Transport to report are wholly satisfactory and in the interests of the people of London. Clause 6 deals with tendering requirements. Clause 23 deals with accounts and the auditors' report, which can be as long as the auditors make it. Clause 34 concerns contract carriage business and clause 33 concerns the annual report. All of those requirements must be put in the context of clause 31, which enables the Secretary of State to demand any statement from LRT if he thinks fit, especially if it requires its annual grant.
New clause 10, by requiring a plan, will give just that little extra which the main strategy statement does not provide. There is no point in trying to shackle LRT about the content of the plan. Such a nationalised industry with a fully professional management cannot be committed to what its report should contain. The flexibility afforded by new clause 10 is exactly right.
I hope that people who have anything to complain about with regard to LRT will get in touch with their Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggested. I also hope that we shall keep the Secretary of State on his toes. Armed with the annual report, the three-year strategy statement and the annual plan, hon. Members and consumers will have plenty of details on the basis of which to question the Secretary of State. I welcome new clause 10 and thank my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Corbyn: New clause 10 begins:
It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport in each accounting year to prepare …a plan".
It is a sad day when right hon. and hon. Members are told that such a new clause is a great advance, when we are doing away with an elected authority which can decide about the future of London Transport—we are able to put pressure op elected members of the GLC with regard to that policy—and replace it with the Secretary of State appearing before the House annually to announce his plan for London Regional Transport. The new level of

consultation will amount to a debate on the Secretary of State's announcement the same day or a couple of days later, and a vote. I do not know about the Secretary of State, but I do not feel able to consult everyone in my constituency in a short time to ascertain all the details about the future of London Transport that I should pursue to forward in their interests.
The concept of a plan for London Transport is being introduced, but more significant is what the Minister and the Secretary of State said earlier about LRT being run on "business lines". In a fascinating speech, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who is no longer here, told us that the best insurance for Londoners' travel in future is that it will be run on business lines.
I would just ask the hon. Gentleman to consider for a moment, as we asked him to consider when he was speaking, whether running a transport system on business lines does not mean that the motives of profit, of disposal of assets and of reductions in service in order to balance the books would be the primary motives, rather than what I believe should be the primary motives of good planning for London and the provision of a good public transport system. These must be the basis of the way in which transport should be run in London.
In only the last few days it has become apparent exactly how serious the cuts in London Transport could be if the Government were to gain control of it in the way that they hope. From a GLC level of £214 million in support, we could go down as low as £90 million in support, with all the cuts and closures and the loss of millions of bus miles that would result.

Mr. Maples: Would the hon. Gentleman say on what evidence he bases his suggestion that the Government would do that?

Mr. Corbyn: I base it on an assessment prepared, it is true, by GLC officers. I am not hiding the fact and I do not seek to hide it in arguments anywhere else. All I am pointing out is the level of service cuts implicit in the Government's taking control of London Transport and in the reduction of its grant from the level at which the GLC wished to pay it, which allowed for expansion of services, to what the Government envisage, which will result in very high fares, a vastly reduced service or a combination of both.
It has recently become apparent which tube lines, which bus routes and which stations would be at some risk. I ask the Minister to tell us this. It has become apparent that Arsenal tube station in my constituency would be faced with closure under the plan that the Government are seeking to impose on the people of London. There has immediately been local opposition to this and a number of letters have been sent to me and, no doubt, to the Minister and others, asking why Arsenal tube station is to be closed. It is a very inadequate system, when people who are defending a local tube station should have to have the matter raised in Parliament, when they ought to be able to raise it with the relevant local authority, in this case the GLC.
When the Secretary of State answers the debate on this clause, could we be told how it is an advance for the people of London if, once a year, he will come here and announce the plan for London for the whole year? On the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, there would not even by any consultation during that year because


these business experts, these smart city gents, would be so busy trying to balance books and ignoring the legitimate demands of pensioners' groups and of the majority of people in London who do not have a car that they would be merely slicing services apart.
This is part of the process of making London unique in western Europe as the only capital without a transport system that is designed to be integrated, that links road planning with public transport planning and that tries to provide a service rather than running a public service as a business. It is impossible to do that without destroying London through building roads, implementing cuts in services and ruining the lives and livelihoods of many London Transport employees.
Will the Minister also tell us how, in 1984 of all years, any of this clause can be considered remotely democratic?

Mr. Terry Dicks: I am rather concerned about the views of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on the details that he wants to see in the clause. Common sense should tell him that, by its very nature, a plan will contain details of services and facilities and of the levels and structure of fares. By its very nature, such a plan must be supported by estimates because that is how future expenditure is displayed. To suggest that such details are necessary demonstrates on the part of the hon. Member a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding of the nature of the plan itself.
One thing that he did not seek to be displayed by the plan is the balance between farepayers, taxpayers and ratepayers. Opposition Members are always very concerned about farepayers. We rarely hear them talk about taxpayers and ratepayers and the burdens placed upon them. There must be a balance between the three, and it is very unfair of Opposition Members to concern themselves, as did the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) solely with the level of fares and the impact on the farepayers.
There has always been a form of consultation —perhaps of dictation—between the GLC and the London Transport Executive, which in itself has led to a great deal of interference — by the Conservative-controlled GLC because it was dissatisfied with the financial aspects of many of the London Transport proposals, and by the Labour-controlled GLC because it never considers the financial aspects of anything under its authority, unless to ensure that money is spent and then only if it comes not from its own pocket.
I support the clause. The amendments are wholly unnecessary. Consultation must always be considered, but not consultation of the kind that Opposition Members want.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) really is a most ungrateful wretch to speak in unkind terms about his former employer, the GLC.

Mr. Dicks: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker. It is my current employer.

Mr. Banks: The Government clause represents a concession to the loss of democratic control over London Transport currently exercised by the GLC. I want to emphasise how difficult it is to make transport plans

without paying attention to a wider strategy that takes into account the needs and problems of a particular area. Many sources could be prayed in aid for that particular contention. I shall choose just one for the record this evening, a letter from the right hon. Member who is now Secretary of State for the Environment, written in 1977 and giving his evidence to the Marshall inquiry set up by Sir Horace Cutler, the then Conservative leader of the GLC, to look at the role of the GLC in London. The Secretary of State was at the time a member of the Opposition. He said:
I would be grateful if you would put this letter before Sir Frank Marshall … Local planning was often frustrated because we had to operate under a regional plan for which no authority was really suitable. There was a great need for proper strategic planning which existed only on paper.
The right hon. Gentleman was talking about his battle against the then Ministry of Transport's proposal to take a lorry route through Highgate, a proposal that he was successful in defeating. He went on to say:
It was essential to bring strategic planning and transport under the same control. The lorry route episode showed the appalling dangers of allowing an authority with transport responsibilities power to override all environmental considerations.
He went on to say:
I therefore believe we have got progressively to return to the concept that the GLC is a strategic authority.
He continued:
The GLC should remain responsible for London Transport and its transport planning should be progressively integrated with its strategic land use planning.
Now, of course, the Secretary of State for the Environment is turning the advice that he gave to the Marshall inquiry in 1977 on its head. His Government are putting forward legislation which refutes everything that he said in 1977. The right hon. Member who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment was right in 1977 and is now very wrong.

Mr. Maples: If the hon. Gentleman prays in aid the Marshall report, is he aware that the current leader of the GLC, in debate in the council on the Marshall report, quoted in an earlier debate in the House, said:
I feel a degree of regret that Marshall did not push on and say 'Abolish the GLC' because I think it would have been a major saving…I do not believe you need two tiers of local government and I very much regret that Horace Cutler has not been the really ruthless Tory he likes to project and come forward with the biggest axe of all, and axed the whole appalling show." —[Official Report, 24 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 1094.]

Mr. Banks: I am not praying in aid the results of the Marshall inquiry. I am merely praying in aid the letter that was written by the present Secretary of State for the Environment. It is interesting that some of those who took part in the discussions over the future of the GLC in 1977 delivered a number of hostages to fortune.

Mr. Snape: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, rather courageously, that he thought there should be an elected body to which transport plans should be submitted. The events that took place earlier this afternoon show that that is the direction from which pressure will come. There is to be an elected education authority for inner London. Why can there not be an elected transport authority for


London? I am sure that the Secretary of State will have to resist pressure for the introduction of such an authority, and it is possible that some of the pressure will come from his hon. Friends. The principle could be extended further to include an elected health body for London. The obvious result would be an overall elected body for London. I hope that the development of an elected ILEA will be the forerunner of an overall pattern of directly elected local government in London.
As the hon. Member for Wellingborough said, the only place in which hon. Members will be able to make any representations about the future operation of transport and its planning within the Greater London area will be this place. One or two Conservative Members seem positively to welcome that, including the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). The Secretary of State, who is known not to be one of the most tolerant of Ministers, will not he any too happy about being bombarded with questions from London Members who are demanding to know why a bus stop, for example, has or has not been moved in their constituencies.
The right hon. Gentleman must remember that if the Bill is enacted as it stands, the Chamber will be the only place where such debates can take place. I am not so sure whether the right hon. Gentleman will feel qualified to answer such questions. I am sure that my personal opinion will not bother him very much, but I feel that the moving of a bus stop is the only issue which he is qualified adequately to answer. I doubt whether he will be any too tolerant if he receives a non-stop bombardment of questions of that sort from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has supported the amendments which the Opposition have tabled to the new clause. It is difficult to convince Conservative Members of the origin of the amendments. Amendments in the same terms were thought necessary when the House of Commons was considering the measure which became the 1983 Act. Indeed, Conservative Members voted for them on that occasion. Why have the amendments become intolerable less than a year after the 1983 measure became law? The logic of Conservative Members' thinking escapes me. If democratically elected authorities must live with the conditions outlined in the amendments, I see no reason why LRT should not do so.
I enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who, regrettably, is no longer in his place. He sometimes gives the impression that his personal time clock stopped at about 1912. That is understandable, because I know from my own interest in these matters that it was about 1912 when the chairman of the London, Brighton and South Coast railway was none other than Sir Nicholas Cosmo Bonsor. I hazard a guess that the hon. Gentleman is likely to be related to that gentleman. His relative, however close the hon. Gentleman might be to him, would have been proud of the speech that he delivered this afternoon. When the hon. Gentleman takes his annual holiday—no doubt it will be in the Hapsburg empire during the summer—I hope that he will take a copy of Hansard which contains a report of this debate.
As the hon. Member for Upminster said, he is obsessed with "business reality". I am always impressed when Conservative Members talk about that. I confess that on some occasions they know more about such matters than

Opposition Members. After all, their Government have bankrupted more businesses in the five years since 1979 than any Labour Government in the lifetime of any Member of this place. There is some justification for them to be so worried about "business reality", but it is a pity that that worry does not extend to the consumers of public transport in London, who will be denied any voice in transport matters unless the amendments are accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) drew the attention of the House to the likely difficulties that will ensue in securing any adequate debate in this place on London's transport. His plea was that the amendments should be accepted. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) had a few words to say about taxpayers and ratepayers. He accused Labour Members of showing no interest in the welfare of taxpayers and ratepayers. Like many other Members of this place, I am both a taxpayer and a ratepayer in the London area. I do not know whether that is a necessary declaration of interest. Labour Members are concerned about those who are unfortunate enough to have to use London's public transport once LRT comes into being. That has been the main thrust of the debate and that is the main thrust of the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) correctly drew attention to the dramatic turnabout of the Secretary of State for the Environment. I think that that is the fourth U-turn in 24 hours. The Government appear to be having a couple of bad days. As for the Secretary of State, it could not happen to a nicer guy.
The new clause, welcome though it is, does not even mention the present responsibilities of the GLC and the issues that caused the Secretary of State for the Environment to write his letter as long ago as 1977. Every Member of this place should know that there is a great interdependence between planning and the reality of operating a transport system in any city. The Minister of State shakes her head, but that is true in Liverpool and Merseyside generally, and it is true in every other capital city throughout the world. The only purpose of the amendments — they were extracted from a measure which the Government introduced less than a year ago — is to give London's citizens the same rights and benefits within their transport system as are enjoyed by the citizens of every other developing country.

Mr. Ridley: The House was treated this afternoon to the rare and delightful spectacle of the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) colliding with each other as they sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They should co-ordinate and integrate their operations so that that does not happen again. Further, they should coordinate their point of view. Unfortunately, one of them was absent from the Chamber while the other was speaking. One said that the object behind the Bill was to push up property values for Tory speculators. The other hotly denied that and said that the Government had failed to connect the Bill with the need for land use planning. That gives me the cue to agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that land use planning is important in relation to London's transport.
I remind the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Newham, North-West that it was said in Committee that the Government would


accept amendments designed to co-ordinate transport activities with the strategic land use plan for London which is in existence at any time. I undertook to table such an amendment and I have not moved away from that undertaking. I fear that, due to legal difficulties, the amendment has not yet been drafted. However, it will be introduced into the Bill in another place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) brought us back to the central point by reminding us that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)—and where is he?—said at the beginning of the Committee stage that we should seek to strike a balance between the interests of ratepayers and travellers. Three months later we have not heard a single mention by Labour Members of ratepayers. I must put that first in answering my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), whose point of view I appreciate and understand, and whose work on the Select Committee on Transport was valuable. He gets his answer from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, who said that transport policies in the past have been most annoyingly and maddeningly interrupted by lack of cash. This is the point. We are talking about £370 million-worth of public expenditure annually and one cannot remove from politics such a great sum.
The Government, who are responsible for the economy and the proper distribution of resources, have seen the GLC wasting resources by profligate expenditure on all sorts of things, but particularly on London Transport. There is no other example of a nationalised industry, which this is, being run by an elected body with a political majority different from that of central Government. That is all right for matters such as education, but no one could say that education is a nationalised industry. A nationalised industry, which has to be run efficiently, should not be under two different political masters. In theory it seems to be a mistake, but even if it were acceptable in theory, in practice it has proved to be a mistake. The experiment of the GLC running London Transport has not been a success.

Mr. Fry: If that is the case, why is it the Government's current policy to keep local involvement in the passenger transport executives when the metropolitan counties are abolished? There is a local government input to those bodies.

Mr. Ridley: London is the capital; the PTEs are not in the capital. The House must await the Government's proposals on that matter. When my hon. Friend sees them, he will get the answer.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has been busy as usual hugging himself with self-congratulatory glee——

Mr. Snape: Anticipatory glee.

Mr. Ridley: I shall go quickly through the opportunities for accountability and consultation. Under clause 7 a strategic statement, which will be the subject of consultation, is to be published at least every three years; that is a fairly major measure of accountability. The annual ratepayers' levy will be debated in the House with my report and will be backed up by all the necessary information. Under clause 29, the details of the level of

services and fares are to be given to the London Regional Transport passengers' committee and the local authorities and is to be the subject of consultation with them; an annual report of LRT and its accounts are to be laid before the House. Under the proposed clause an annual business plan is to be made public and is to be available for all to comment upon.
The Opposition say that they want a second annual consultation process on the levels of services and fares; they want two consultations with the same bodies in one year. What does the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East think? Does he want to be able on Monday to consult under clause 29 and then on Tuesday to require the authority to produce a business plan which will need further consultation? Does he want a statutory obligation for consultation with the same body on two separate documents on the same subject? The Opposition must be absolutely mad.
6.45 pm
I repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that closures are being planned. The GLC told him that we would spend only £90 million on London Transport, so he worked out a list of closures. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East referred to "squalid and nasty" decisions to close stations which I would get someone else to take. All those matters would be subject to the long process of consultation which I have set out.
I shall repeat what I said. There is no plan to close any tube station, stop any bus service or do any of the things that are constantly being alleged by the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East. He did not even hear my hon. Friend when she denied it at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. He walked in late in the day and repeated these allegations in which he knows there is no truth. It is high time he listened, instead of continually trying to spread alarm and despondency. He is the master of the people who have been described throughout the debate as those who live over the water; he is the king over the water, the old pretender who has been pretending that 34 bus services are to be withdrawn, 33 tube stations are to be closed, bus passes are to be ended and only £90 million is to be spent on LRT next year. All this is simply scare tactics designed to cause anxiety and confusion. There is no need for any of it. There is a need for the clause and I hope the House will agree that it should not be amended.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed: In line 3, leave out from `proposals' to end of line 4 and insert
`for the next three years ("the relevant period") with respect to—
(a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them, or by agreement with them, by other persons; and
(b) the general level and structure of fares to be charged for those services, and the general level of charges to be made for those facilities, so far as they are to be charged, made or otherwise determined by London Regional Transport.'. —[Mr. Snape.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 260.

Division No. 232]
[6.50 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ashton, Joe


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)






Barnett, Guy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Benn, Tony
Janner, Hon Greville


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
John, Brynmor


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Blair, Anthony
Kennedy, Charles


Boyes, Roland
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bruce, Malcolm
Loyden, Edward


Buchan, Norman
McCartney, Hugh


Caborn, Richard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McTaggart, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
McWilliam, John


Cartwright, John
Madden, Max


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Marek, Dr John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maxton, John


Cohen, Harry
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Michie, William


Conlan, Bernard
Mikardo, Ian


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Cowans, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
O'Brien, William


Crowther, Stan
O'Neill, Martin


Cunningham, Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Patchett, Terry


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Penhaligon, David


Dobson, Frank
Pike, Peter


Dormand, Jack
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Douglas, Dick
Randall, Stuart


Dubs, Alfred
Redmond, M.


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Eadie, Alex
Richardson, Ms Jo


Eastham, Ken
Robertson, George


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Ellis, Raymond
Rogers, Allan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Rooker, J. W.


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Faulds, Andrew
Rowlands, Ted


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Ryman, John


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Flannery, Martin
Sheerman, Barry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Foster, Derek
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foulkes, George
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Skinner, Dennis


George, Bruce
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Gould, Bryan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Snape, Peter


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Spearing, Nigel


Hardy, Peter
Stott, Roger


Harman, Ms Harriet
Straw, Jack


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Tinn, James


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Torney, Tom


Heffer, Eric S.
Wareing, Robert


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Weetch, Ken


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Welsh, Michael


Hoyle, Douglas
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Winnick, David





Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.


Tellers for the Ayes:





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fox, Marcus


Alexander, Richard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Amess, David
Freeman, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Fry, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Galley, Roy


Ashby, David
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Batiste, Spencer
Goodlad, Alastair


Beggs, Roy
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bendall, Vivian
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Greenway, Harry


Benyon, William
Gregory, Conal


Berry, Sir Anthony
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gummer, John Selwyn


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hanley, Jeremy


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Harvey, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Butcher, John
Henderson, Barry


Butler, Hon Adam
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hooson, Tom


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Conway, Derek
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Critchley, Julian
Jackson, Robert


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dicks, Terry
Jessel, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dover, Den
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James A.


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Lamont, Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Farr, John
Lawler, Geoffrey


Favell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forman, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim






Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Lightbown, David
Price, Sir David


Lilley, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Raffan, Keith


Lord, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Luce, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lyell, Nicholas
Rhodes James, Robert


McCrea, Rev William
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Macfarlane, Neil
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McQuarrie, Albert
Rost, Peter


Madel, David
Rowe, Andrew


Maginnis, Ken
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Major, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Malins, Humfrey
Scott, Nicholas


Malone, Gerald
Shersby, Michael


Maples, John
Silvester, Fred


Marlow, Antony
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Speed, Keith


Merchant, Piers
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spencer, Derek


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Montgomery, Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Moore, John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Murphy, Christopher
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, J.
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Normanton, Tom
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Norris, Steven
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Philip
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Parris, Matthew
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wood, Timothy


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pink, R. Bonner



Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Powley, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Sainsbury.] Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Ginns and Gutteridge, Leicester (Crematorium) Bill

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7 pm

Mr. John Farr: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
I am anxious to proceed with the Bill, which I introduced in the House on 14 February 1983. After a fairly short debate, it received a Second Reading. A number of amendments will be discussed later. I intend to proceed as quickly as I can.
I believe that both sides of the House would wish to be associated with one interesting factor. Mr. Arthur Metcalfe has been in the service of the House as clerk to the parliamentary agents Dyson Bell and Co. for 50 years. Mr. Metcalfe is part of Westminster's history, and I know that hon. Members wish to show the proper acknowledgement to him for his dedicated service to the House for more than half a lifetime.
The Bill is almost unique. Following the Second Reading debate in February last year, the Bill went before a Select Committee for almost a record number of sittings for a Committee hearing in the post-war period. The Select Committee had about 25 sittings, considered well over 100 pieces of evidence and heard 13 different witnesses. The Committee recommended that the Bill be approved. It laid down certain stringent conditions, with which the House is acquainted, and I shall not bore hon. Members with the details. I ask the House to accept consideration of the Bill so that it can soon be put on the statute book.

Mr. Greville Janner: It might have been thought, from the speech of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), that the crematorium was to be placed in his constituency, but it is not. The proposal is to place the crematorium in my constituency so that the citizens of Leicester, West may have the benefits of the efforts of the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency contains more green fields and light minds than mine.
It might have been thought also that a certain remarkable parliamentary emanation would have shown that the crematorium was in Conservative territory. If nothing else, that document has made much parliamentary history because of the extremely long consideration that the Bill received in Committee.
The document purports to be a private Whip emanating from the hon. Member for Harborough and signed by the hon. Gentleman and people from the far Right, the hanging Centre and the reforming Left of the Conservative party. Those sections are apparently anxious that there should be a crematorium in a high street in my constituency.
That disgraceful document has been signed by six Conservative Members of Parliament representing the county of Leicestershire. I am the only Labour Member of Parliament representing any part of that county. I presume that those hon. Members intended to show that this was a party matter. That is the first falsehood that brings the Bill before the House.
I am pleased that the Bill is opposed not only by many of my hon. Friends but by many distinguished and vocal Conservative Members. This is a matter not of


privatisation but of life or death. The nearest approach to privatisation in this debate is the privatisation by the hon. Member for Harborough of the whipping system. I suggest that we should recognise that this matter affects all of us, whether Conservative, Labour or Liberal, because one day we shall all be concerned with the end, as we are now concerned with the middle, of our lives. We should all be anxious that cities preserve the decencies and normalities of life, even if we happen to represent a place as rural and lovely as that represented by the hon. Member for Harborough.
I wonder whether the House knows the type of place in which the kindly hon. Member for Harborough and his Conservative Friends propose to place the crematorium —not in their constituencies, but in mine. Perhaps they have been encouraged to take this action because the site is next door to the office of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers. Perhaps they believe that it would be a good idea to place a crematorium next door to the union which some of them have so bitterly opposed. I wonder whether those Conservative Members know also that in the same building from which the union operates are the offices of Creative Advertising (Leicester) Ltd. which, I understand, is against the proposal, Creative Photography (Leicester) Ltd., Studio 41 (Graphics) and TASS.
I wonder whether Conservative Members know that in the building next door to where they so kindly wish to place a crematorium are the premises of Charnwood Technic Art Ltd., Hebron and Medlock (Leicester) Ltd., industrial consultants, SAGG Beauty and Good Grooming, which undoubtedly will greatly benefit from having a crematorium next door, and John Biggs, Graphics. Across the road, in case anybody wants to take a dip, is the St. Margaret's swimming baths. I am sure that all the people who work and swim there are deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough for wanting to place the crematorium opposite the main recreational facility in that part of my constituency.
Already, as people come to the baths to swim, they can observe the occasional hearse. We shall deal later—although I hope we shall not reach that stage—with amendments relating to the lack of parking and other facilities.
It is notable that. despite all the unused space in the benighted area of Harborough, the hon. Gentleman — understandably, he is departing from the Chamber—wishes to place the crematorium in my constituency. I invite him to wait until he hears what the bishop has to say, because the area includes not only swimming baths, but also churches.
The hon. Member for Harborough—I say this in all seriousness — has seen fit to make one of the most disgraceful personal attacks upon a bishop or anyone else that I have ever known. In my happy constituency the bishop and I have disagreed with each other politically, but we have always got on perfectly well personally.
The hon. Gentleman, who is now leaving the Chamber again, might like to bear in mind that the Bill is not just improper and wrong because it will affect those who use places of work, swimming baths and churches, but also because it was brought in by false pretences.
Evidence was given to the Committee that there was a place available for the scattering of ashes in a nearby churchyard, when that was not true. The bishop has made it abundantly clear that neither he nor anyone else of

authority ever gave consent to acquire that churchyard to the hon. Gentleman or any of his acolytes, from other parts of Leicester—not my constituency—who want to put the crematorium in my patch, and who are sitting there wondering who is going to be cremated after being hanged.
I wish to refer the House to the correspondence that has passed between the Bishops of Gloucester and of Leicester and the hon. Gentleman, the like of which I hope never to see again, and the like of which has never before been put before the House, and which I deeply regret. It is possible to disagree with ideas but still to preserve the decencies. Perhaps that was not possible for the hon. Gentleman, in view of what has been placed before the Committee about circumstances in which it was right for Messers Ginns and Gutteridge to have their crematorium in the high street in my constituency — that, although there was nowhere to scatter ashes nearby, there was a nearby available chuchyard which would be pleased to accommodate Messers Ginns and Gutteridge. It was not so. It was untrue.
As it was untrue, what was left to the hon. Gentleman other than to attack the bishop personally and to suggest that if he spent more time in his diocese instead of abroad he might know more of what was going on? It is a personal attack which I am sure the bishop's parishioners and the people of Leicester, West will note with scorn. No doubt the hon. Member's constituents will regret it; there is no need to attack the bishop because one disagrees with him.

Mr. Derek Spencer: If the case against the crematorium being located in the place where it is asked to be located is so overwhelming, will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why the city council gave it planning consent?

Mr. Janner: Yes, when the application first came before the city council, it made a mistake of the worst kind —[Laughter.] Conservative Members may laugh. Their mistake is now in thinking that the House will be fooled tonight into passing the Bill, in thinking that the bishop would sit tight and take insults, and that my constituents would sit back and accept the mistake made by the council and others, a mistake whch the council has fought hard to rectify ever since, and which I believe the House will help to rectify tonight.

Mr. Farr: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way and urge him not to become overexcited about this matter, because he has probably forgotten, although I have not, that when I introduced the Bill in February last year I asked him whether he had any views on it. I know that he had another important engagement elsewhere that evening, but he will accept that at that time he had no views for or against the Bill. The fact that he has suddenly changed his position is surely worthy of some explanation to the House.

Mr. Janner: The explanation is clear. I was shown to be wrong, too. I have since received the most fervent representations from people who live and work nearby, from the city council, which recognised its error, from the Bishop of Leicester and from my constituents. The constituents of the hon. Member for Harborough and those who support him are not affected. This is not a Conservative against Labour matter; it is not a matter of


those who are believers and those who are not, churchmen and non-churchmen; it is not a matter for sectarian consideration and certainly not one for personal abuse.
I shall now read the correspondence which the hon. Gentleman succeeded in delaying for a few moments. The letter is dated 26 March. It is to Gloucestershire Members of Parliament from the Bishop of Gloucester. It states:
If I am not too late, I hope I might just catch your eye and ear over a private Bill which will enable Funeral Directors, Ginns and Gutteridge in Leicester, to build their own crematorium.
Although there has been no discussion about this amongst the Bishops, I am bound to say the prospect of privately owned and operated cremators on the premises of local funeral directors does cause me a good deal of anxiety.
I understand it is being argued that such a development would be of particular benefit to the adherents of non-Christian faiths, particularly Hindu, and this would not be an aspect of the matter which would be prominent in Gloucestershire. I am not competent, in any case, to deal with it, but I do believe that for most Christian families the spaciousness and dignity which are almost always provided by the crematoria we now have, away from the city centres, is a valuable part of our customary way of doing things, and one which I should be reluctant to see disappear.
I realise that there is a philosophical argument about freedom for funeral directors to become more competitive and to be able to show initiative in their business, but I believe there is another which draws our attention to many aspects of life at the moment which tend to cheapen and devalue human life. Against this background, the way we deal with death and bereavement is an important pointer to the value we place upon life itself, and if we allow or encourage developments which would appear to downgrade the rites and ceremonies attached to funerals, I think we might be taking a step in a quite wrong direction.
Obviously if local funeral directors are allowed to install small cremation machines on their own premises, they will try to exert whatever pressure they can upon the churches to license those same premises for use as chapels, so that the whole funeral service can take place there. It is, of course, a hypothetical situation, but I feel bound to say I should be very reluctant to give licences for Church of England funerals to take place under such circumstances for the reasons I have glanced at above.
I am rather hoping, therefore, that if you are in the House when the Ginns and Gutteridge Bill comes along, you will examine it very critically, and if it comes to us in the Lords, I shall at the moment be disposed to vote against it, unless something I have not yet come across emerges during the debate.
Forgive me for adding to your postbag.
The correspondence continues with a letter from the Bishop of Leicester to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). I shall not read it, but the bishop says that he is not opposed to private crematoria but he opposes this plan because it would give private crematoria a bad name. He refers to the objections raised by the Cremation Society and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities, which have not been answered by Ginns and Gutteridge.
I may be wrong, but I have searched through the evidence given to the Committee and some of the Committee minutes and I have not found any reference to opposition to this proposal from the Church, the Bishops of Gloucester or Leicester, or anyone else. I believe that the House should not consider the Bill because, for all the time that was given to it in Committee, no time was given to the consideration of the views which have just been put forward by and on behalf of the Church and the bishops involved.
I also have a letter which was addressed to all Leicester Members of Parliament. At the bottom it says, "Except Greville Janner." I do not suppose that that was for any

sectarian reason, but probably because the bishop knew that I was on the side that we share, in righteousness. It reads:
I was only recently informed about this private crematorium bill for Leicester, or I would have written to you earlier asking you to oppose it when it comes before Parliament.
By the way, those are hon. Members for all the Leicester seats besides mine who are opposing the Bill.
The letter is dated 28 March 1984 and continues:
You probably know that I am opposed to the bill. So are the bishops who have mentioned it to me, the Cremation Society and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities.
The society and the federation are fiercely proud private enterprise organisations.
The Cremation Society has adequately outlined the objections to the proposed crematorium, and Ginns and Gutteridge have failed to reply satisfactorily to those objections.
I am not opposed to privatisation; and I deeply regret that this issue may have become political because privatisation is involved … I am alarmed at the precedents that it would set for bad privatisation with poor standards. It would be a first step to the widespread installation of corpse disposal units and inevitably carry all the unsavoury connotations of burning bodies in the basement.
What a beautiful and accurate term that is.
Somebody said to me the other day that if Ginns and Gutteridge gets its way there will be bodies burning in basements in every high street in the country, preferably those with Labour MPs in them. The letter continues:
The premises proposed are on a cramped site in the centre of Leicester City,"—
I shall return to that—
in a place thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose of cremation.
Is it not odd that Members of Parliament representing places other than that place in my part of the centre of Leicester City, which is thoroughly unsuitable for the purpose of cremation, wish to place a crematorium smack on a high street in my constituency?
I gather that Ginns and Gutteridge have suggested"—
this is where we come to the essence of the matter, and I advise the hon. Member for Harborough to listen, because this is how the bishop replied, in the way that he saw fit—
 that they might purchase All Saints Church as a garden of remembrance.
That church is not next door, but is within walking or carrying distance.
They have not consulted me on this possibility.
Can one imagine the company suggesting that it will buy a churchyard, yet not bothering to ask the bishop? Perhaps it does not know his address.
The bishop said:
I would not be prepared to allow it.
What clearer statement of intention could there be?

Mr. David Ashby: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Janner: Oh, another one.

Mr. Ashby: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Is he telling us about the bishop who suddenly decided a year later that he had not heard about the Bill? Is that the man who has a bishopric in the same city as the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency?

Mr. Janner: That is a lovely question coming from an hon. Member who once asked in the House whether it was true that miners had cars.
All Saints' church is some distance from premises of Ginns and Gutteridge, across a street bearing heavy traffic. If the hon. Member wishes to intervene again, I challenge him to do so from Ashby—I am sorry, that is his name


not that of the constituency which he represents, which, by the way, is many miles from the place where he wishes to place a crematorium. However, I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. He does not answer —very wise.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, (Mr. Janner) is continually on the move. At one moment he is half way down the Bench and at the next he is on another Bench. I suggest to you that it is a requirement of the House to speak from a more or less static position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I was not aware of that. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not perambulate.

Mr. Harry Cowans: If it were not for the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) would not move at all.

Mr. Janner: I thought that the hon. Member for Harborough was moving the Bill.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a serious debate and I thought that the idea was that we should not play to the Gallery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Chair to decide whether an hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Janner: When the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has been in the House a little longer he will learn that the right way to oppose an hon. Member is to do so courteously, and not to follow the example of the hon. Member for Harborough in personal attack. The hon. Gentleman may also learn that when he sees fit to add his name to a Private Whip he must expect attack. If he does not like being made fun of, he should leave the Chamber. It is a free House.
After all these interruptions, I wish to end by reading the letter from the Bishop of Leicester that was disliked so much. I am not in the least surprised that some Leicestershire Conservative Members dislike it. I knew that they would interrupt me as I read it, because they have no answer besides personal abuse. The bishop said:
I gather that Ginns and Gutteridge has suggested that they might purchase All Saints Church as a garden of remembrance. They have not consulted me on this possibility. I would not be prepared to allow it. All Saints Church is in fact some distance from their premises across a street bearing heavy traffic.
In other words, the bishop says that even if he were prepared to allow the crematorium to be established, someone would have to carry the urns or caskets —presumably with ashes in them, because they have to be scattered—across one of the busiest and most dangerous streets in Leicester. It is a street which I suspect the hon. Member for Harborough would not know, because he has probably never visited that street, otherwise he would not have had the gall to put his name to the Bill.
The bishop continued:
I have found no indication that the proposed new crematorium would offer a particularly desirable service to those of non-christian faiths.
I hope you will be prepared to oppose this Bill.
The hon. Member for Harborough has a copy of his letter too. Perhaps he wishes to read it to the House. As he does not, I shall do so. It said:
Thank you for your letter of the 28th March. I was indeed surprised to learn that you have just been made aware of the

existence of this Bill. This Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons in April 1983, when it was widely publicised. Additionally, Mr. Paul Ginns at your suggestion, explained the purpose of the proposed Crematorium to Arch Deacon Silk"——

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention and that of the House to the fact that all the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has consisted of so far is a series of letters. They may be relevant to his case, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has been speaking for more than 20 minutes and he has hardly said a word of his own. Surely he can just say what he thinks about the Bill and sit down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been listening carefully to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). He is in order at the moment.

Mr. Janner: I am delighted to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Every word I have said, including the words that the hon. Member for Harborough would prefer me not to read out, is strictly relevant. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman interrupts me. No doubt he deeply regrets having written the letter. He did not refer to it in his speech, as he could have done. If he wishes me to give way again I shall always be pleased to do so, returning courtesy for courtesy—in a manner of speaking.
The letter to the bishop from the hon. Member for Harborough continues:
You do suggest that Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge have failed to reply satisfactorily to various objections which have been raised. The House of Commons Committee, however, as you may be aware, carefully considered the proposals and declared themselves as satisfied in their recent report; you refer to the site as being unsuitable as in the centre of the city, and yet the City Council has given planning permission"——
that is nicely misleading; "gave" would be better—
and the City of London Crematorium operates its cremators from a basement quite satisfactorily there".
I am not sure where that is. It is certainly not in my constituency, or in that of the hon. Gentleman. The letter continues:
Mr. Ginns, because of an ancient family link with All Saints Church, would have liked to have had a chance of purchasing it as a garden of remembrance, if only to have preserved it for the Christian faith; they have, I understand, now been able to make suitable arrangements elsewhere.
I should be very interested to know where those arrangements are being made. We have yet to be told of any place that can meet the dignity of ordinary people who wish to scatter the ashes of their beloved after they have been cremated. It is normal courtesy, whatever the faith — whether Christian, Hindu or among those Jewish people who cremate—and normal practice, that people go outside to scatter the ashes, perhaps to plant a tree or a rose bush, or to put up a plaque. They go somewhere nearby to which they can return.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I hope that he will not sigh about it, as I am on his side.
The Select Committee report said:
The first amendments required by the Committee were to the effect that no cremation operation is to be carried out before a garden of rememberance, that is a place for strewing of ashes, has been acquired by Ginns and Gutteridge. This shall be either All Saints Churchyard in High Cross Street or another area approved by the local authority.
I understand that Ginns and Gutteridge made that proposal to the Committee before consulting the Bishop of Leicester and that the bishop then wrote the letter, of which I have a copy, saying:


I gather that Ginns &amp; Gutteridge have suggested that they might purchase All Saints Church as a garden of rememberance. They have not consulted me on this possibility. I would not be prepared to allow it.
Is it not quite extraordinary and entirely unsatisfactory in every respect to bring business before Parliament in that fashion?

Mr. Janner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who on this occasion is indeed on our side. That is the situation to which I referred when I said that the Bill had been brought in under false pretences, first, because the bishop had not been consulted and secondly, because it was put forward on the basis that the strewing of ashes would be either at All Saints in Highcross street, which is not far away — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) objected earlier to my moving around, but he has now moved to another Bench altogether. He cannot keep still for 10 seconds. One never knows whether he is interrupting or just moving around, planting himself in the fields of Westminster.
The report states:
If there is a disagreement about the suitability of the area, there shall be arbitration by an agreed arbitrator".
How can an agreed arbitrator arbitrate about something that does not exist? That does not happen even in industrial relations.
The House has been misled—entirely unwillingly and unwittingly, I am sure—into believing that the bishop had been approached, that there would be a churchyard nearby and a place to strew the ashes, and that if there was more than one place there would be arbitration. In the circumstances that I have described, it was clearly wrong for the Bill to be introduced at all.
The hon. Member for Harborough makes an important point in his letter, but again it is entirely incorrect. He says:
In conclusion, I would like to say that it has been my experience that Hindus like to have a hand on the casket"—
that is correct—
because the Gilroes Crematorium uses a hot cremator this is not possible there.
That cemetery is also in my constituency, but far away up the road and surrounded by green. The letter continues:
The Ginns &amp; Gutteridge cremator will start up from cold.
So far, so good. That is all correct, but the hon. Gentleman omits the extraordinary fact that, as I understand it, at the Ginns and Gutteridge cremator the coffin containing the corpse is to be hoisted up on high before cremation. How anyone can keep a hand on the coffin in those circumstances without going up beside it is impossible to imagine.
I have had no representations from any person of the Hindu faith or any other faith, within or outside my constituency, asking me to support the Bill and to abandon my opposition to it. Those who support the Bill are all well outside my constituency in beautiful areas of the country. I shall not name constituencies, but hon. Members who wish to plant a crematorium in the middle of Leicester come from areas well away from there.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, as I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. and learned Friend referred to religions other than Christianity. I have not seen the premises, but is my hon. and learned Friend

suggesting that it is not possible for a person, perhaps the eldest son, to be touching the coffin on its journey from the chapel to the cremator?

Mr. Janner: I am sorry. My hon. Friend has misunderstood. It is possible for someone to accompany the coffin to the crematorium but it is not possible to keep a hand on the coffin as it enters the burning area. With a hot cremator, it is not possible to keep a hand on the coffin until it actually disappears into what will be the flames, whereas in a cremator that starts from cold it is possible. Nevertheless, one cannot keep a hand on a cold coffin if it is out of reach of one's arm. I believe that such acrobatic feats are not possible even in the more rural areas of Leicestershire.
In a brief reply to me dated 3 April, the bishop makes the position abundantly clear:
The Cremation Society and the Federation of British Cremation Authorities have expressed opposition to the proposals. These proposals are not far from the provision of urban corpse disposal units which would de-humanize the care of both the dead and the bereaved.
Yet that is what it is intended to impose on the citizens of Leicester, West without consulting the bishop, against the wishes expressed by the Church and by the British Medical Association, and certainly against the wishes of all who live, work or have recreation near the premises in question. The bishop continues:
I am sad that the company never approached me to find out the reaction of the diocese to their proposals and I am deeply disturbed at the way in which this Bill has become a matter of party policy rather than real concern for the people of Leicester and their needs.
The hon. Member for Harborough suggested that the bishop was unaware of the problem because of his
extensive programme of foreign travel".
The bishop carries out his duties in the diocese marvellously well and, like others, makes an occasional foray outside. I have never accused the hon. Member for Harborough of doing his job less well because he has recently been spending time in Syria, Iraq and other areas perhaps more dangerous and less salubrious than those visited by the bishop.
Not surprisingly, the bishop replied with some disgust to what was certainly one of the most disgusting personal attacks that could be made on a bishop or anyone else. I was surprised at the behaviour of the hon. Member for Harborough, as we have served in the House together for many years and he has always treated me, as I hope that I have always treated him, with courtesy. That has been true since the first day when he invited me to sign a motion about the Leicester Tigers and assured me that he would not mislead me or the House. In this case, however, the hon. Gentleman as misled the House and I am very sorry. He has also made a personal attack on the bishop because he disagreed with his views. I am very sorry about that, too.
The bishop stated:
I spend on average one night a month away from the diocese. Just because I happen to have met Mr. Farr in East Asia some time ago does not mean that I make a habit of visiting East Asia." Even if he did——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will relate to his remarks to the Bill and not to the bishop's foreign travel.

Mr. Janner: It has been suggested that the bishop should have intervened earlier but did not do so because


he was making an extensive tour of the far east and elsewhere. That personal attack was reported in the Leicester Mercury, under the headline "Church not consulted on funeral firm's plan." It has been alleged that the Church was consulted. This is entirely relevant as it was made clear in the Committee and in its report that the House was being asked to approve the plan on the basis that the Church not only had been consulted but would sell a churchyard for the disposal of the ashes. That was completely untrue. The bishop had not been consulted.

Mr. Farr: rose——

Mr. Janner: I have really had enough of the hon. Member for Harborough. I have given way seven or eight times and there will soon be complaints that I am taking too long.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. I do not think that he read out my letter to the bishop as clearly as he should. I stated in that letter that, before the Bill was even considered, and certainly long before it was printed, Ginns and Gutteridge knew that the Church must be consulted and quite properly approached the diocese of Leicester. The diocese said that Archdeacon Silk and two rural deans would deal with the matter. They visited the offices of Ginns and Gutteridge, remaining there for five hours from 10 am until 3 pm, long before the Bill was printed. At the end of that time they expressed satisfaction with the proposed arrangements. As the bishop has suddenly become aware of the situation, Archdeacon Silk and the two rural deans have since been consulted and confirm that they are still perfectly satisfied with the proposed crematorium arrangements that Ginns and Gutteridge have in hand. I hope that that clears the matter up. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for giving way', because I thought he would wish me to put the record straight in the interests of accuracy.

Mr. Janner: It would have put the record straight, but I spoke to the bishop this evening, and he has authorised me to say that neither he nor anyone else in a position of authority gave consent. The fact that people were taken to lunch at Ginns and Gutteridge, shown around and were mainly satisfied with what they saw of how the business was run—no doubt they were also satisfied with the lunch—is in no way approval by the diocese. Nor is it in any possible way an agreement to sell, dispose of or allow the use of a churchyard. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
The hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to apologise to the bishop, as he could have done, for what he said. If he wishes to apologise now to the House, and through it to the bishop, I shall gladly give way to him again.
The hon. Gentleman does not wish to withdraw or apologise. In the face of that, there is then no way in which the House can decently continue discussion of the Bill.
The Bill is designed to place a crematorium——

Mr. Spencer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Janner: No. If the hon. and learned Gentleman represented the seat in which this crematorium is to be placed, I would give way. Had he represented the seat in which the crematorium is to be placed, I would not have dreamed of signing a private Whip about his constituency without having had the courtesy to speak to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not speak to me, and put his

name to the private Whip. I have already given way to him. Unfortunately, the act of not speaking to people before quoting them is apparently infectious —an infection emerging from Harborough.
It is a travesty that there should be an intention to place this crematorium in the high street. I have with me a photograph of the site of the crematorium which any hon. Member is welcome to see. Yesterday, I went along to see whether any mitigating factor could decently or reasonably allow the crematorium to be placed on this site. I suppose it is arguable that there are empty premises either next to or near this crematorium. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer) nods his head in agreement. I can only guarantee the permanent emptying of all the premises nearby. If that is his object, he should also speak to me before signing a private Whip relating to premises in the next-door constituency. That is a normal courtesy in this House, but it was not followed in these extraordinary circumstances.
I do not take this personally, because the hon. and learned Member was probably unaware of that convention. That said, this is my constituency, not his. It can be seen from the photograph that there is not one lane of traffic but, believe it or not, about eight, as well as a tunnel running into one of the busiest parts of the city. Even were there to be an available churchyard, which there is not, it is across that road that the bereaved are expected to dodge between cars or, perhaps, to use the pedestrian crossing, 100 yards away outside the AUEW building.
I doubt whether those hon. Members who support the Bill have bothered to look at the plan. Had they done so, they would see that the crematorium has no parking facilities. I gather that if we ever reach the appropriate stage, which I hope we shall not, an amendment will be tabled, but at present there is nowhere for vehicles to park. I do not know where an increasing flow of mourners coming to this excellent undertaking are expected to park their vehicles.
It is obvious that more people will use this facility. That is the object of the exercise. It is a perfectly proper way for businesses to try to expand. It would have been proper had the matter been put to the House properly, which it has not. It would have been proper had those who were allegedly approached been approached. It would have been proper had those living round about been consulted. They were not. It would have been proper had the hon. Member concerned been consulted before other hon. Members signed their names to a so-called private Whip stating:
Your attendance at 7 pm until the business is concluded is urgently requested".
It might have been proper had the BMA, which is concerned with medical ethics, been in favour. It is not. It might also have been proper had the crematorium authorities wanted it. They do not.
I have tried to find out who wants this crematorium, and I cannot. Apart from hon. Members who represent constituencies miles away and the business people who wish to expand their business, I have found no one else who wants it. I have asked the AUEW and TASS. I have asked people who swim in St. Margaret's baths whether they would prefer to have a crematorium opposite. I have not found one person who wants it. I have asked estate agents whether it would make it easier to let property. No one wants it, except the hon. Member for Harborough and his colleagues. I cannot understand why.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thought that the bishop wanted it—he did not. Perhaps he thought the diocese wanted it — it does not. Certainly the people of my constituency do not want it. When the citizens of Leicester, West want something, they do not have the least hesitation in telling me. Generations of Janners have received representations from hundreds of thousands of Leicester, West citizens, but no one apparently wants this.
In due course we shall no doubt hear from someone — we did not hear it from the hon. Member from Harborough—why it is desirable to have a crematorium in the high street in my constituency. We may perhaps hear from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South that he would like it in his constituency. As a distinguished and learned Member, he will know that precedents are there to be followed. Once the precedent is established in my constituency, I serve notice that it will not be long before it gets to him.
It may even get to other areas where people do not want it. Learned lawyers will then say, "There is a precedent. The House of Commons approved this after the longest sitting in the history of any Committee. The House of Commons approved it after speeches attacking it. The House of Commons approved it even though it was not wanted by the crematorium employees, the bishop, the people of the constituency, the local Member of Parliament or the BMA."
They approved it because the hon. Member for Harborough wanted it. Therefore it is a precedent and, of course, one that should be followed. I wish that I could find a place in Harborough, worthy of the name of city, capable of implanting——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I really must bring the hon. and learned Gentleman back to the content of the Bill. I would remind him that this is not a Second Reading debate.

Mr. Janner: As you please, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely pointing to the realities of life.
The traffic situation in this area is already disastrous. There is one of the heaviest flows in the county of Leicester. It flows at speed; it is controlled by lights; it is controlled by a tunnel which is immediately opposite the crematorium. There is no adequate parking and there is certainly no reason why the precedents of centuries should be overruled in order to allow the site to be used as a crematorium.
There are houses nearby—not many, but there are, I believe, some 22 homes within a few hundred yards. And certainly I know of no evidence from any persons dwelling in any of those houses that they would like to have a crematorium—if only so that their last journey may be a shorter one than travelling up the Groby road, past the hospital, to Gilroes cemetery, which is available and is, as far as I know, well run and adequate. Behind, there is a garage, and that is about all, and near to that there is a Roman town.
The placing of this crematorium in that position could not possibly be warranted. The only slightly ironic reason, I suppose, is that two streets away is a street known as Holy Bones, but even that is opposite a fabrics factory where people work. Across the road, during the hours in which this crematorium would operate, there is a printing works.

Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. and learned Gentleman to go on like this about a matter which has been considered by the city council and by the planning authority, which considered all these matters very carefully and gave the proposal their consent? For the hon. and learned Gentleman to go on detailing all the surrounding properties is, I suggest, a great waste of time and quite unnecessary as it already has planning approval from the Leicester authority, as he well knows.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The length of a speech is not a matter for the Chair. As long as the hon. and learned Member is in order and referring to the Bill, he can go on speaking.

Mr. Janner: If the hon. Member for Harborough were to interrupt me less often, I might finish rather sooner. However, I would still be prepared to give way to him if he wished to apologise to the Bishop of Leicester for his attack. Subject to that, perhaps he will hear me out and we shall get through more swiftly. All that he wants is for this, Bill to pass. I hope I have made it plain that all I want is for the Bill to be rejected, and I am using a wholly proper parliamentary method in order to see that it is, I hope, rejected—because it is not, as has been made out in this private and extraordinary Whip, a Conservative party matter, but a matter, as the bishop has said, of concern to all citizens interested in the decencies of life and of death.
A statement was made on behalf of the promoters in support of consideration of the Bill. I have the statement and I have attached to it the Bill itself. The statement says:
The Company' s"—
that is, Ginns and Gutteridge's—
premises are situated immediately upon Vaughan Way and are therefore affected by the 50 yards' limit under the said section 5. However, as the area constitutes the industrial and commercial centre of the city of Leicester, there are only 21 dwellings even within the 300 yards in respect of which notices were served…on 38 owners, lessees or occupiers, as prescribed by the Standing Orders. Moreover, none of those dwellings is within sight of the Company's premises.
It must be relevant to this Bill that there are 21 dwellings and that there are 38 owners, lessees and occupiers, with their families, who live out of sight but within range of this place—this place which Ginns and Gutteridge itself says constitutes the industrial and commercial centre of the city of Leicester, which is not where a crematorium should be placed.
I would oppose this Bill even if the crematorium were not in my constituency. I would oppose it just as heartily if it were in the constituency of the hon. Members for other parts of the city of Leicester who have seen fit to add their names, without consulting me, to this Whip.

Mr. Soames: Perhaps I could help the hon. and learned Gentleman with a possible solution to this problem. If Ginns and Gutteridge, which, I gather, represents that it will be able to buy this churchyard even though the bishop, apparently, is not in favour of it, could perhaps buy a field in Harborough and use that instead, local honour would be satisfied all round. How would the hon. and learned Gentleman feel about that?

Mr. Janner: I would be agreeable to that. It could also be put in north-west Leicestershire. In fact, I think we could even have a whip round and find people to contribute


the odd copper so as to place it in one of their constituencies and not in mine. I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Ashby: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Leicestershire, North-West, and I must say straight away that I do not see anything objectionable about a garden of remembrance in north-west Leicestershire. It would be a great honour and I would be quite willing.

Mr. Janner: The hon. Member's intervention completely seals this matter because he is talking about a garden of remembrance and he has not even noticed that there is no room for a garden of any kind where it is intended to put the crematorium in my constituency. It is amazing that the hon. Gentleman has not even read his brief on this occasion. Had he read it he would have known that the basis of the objection on this side is that there is no garden, for remembrance or for any other purpose. There is no field, no patch of green, not even a window box, within sight. If the hon. Member thinks that is funny, I do not. I think it is awful and a great shame, and that is what we are talking about here — the planting of a crematorium where there is no room to plant anything else, the putting of a crematorium for the disposal of human remains where the bereaved cannot walk out into a field, into a garden or into sunshine where they can sit quietly and reflect. They can walk out only on to one of the busiest streets in the midlands, with traffic flowing in both directions, where, alas, they and the casket may be knocked down, may be whisked away — [An HON.MEMBER: "More customers."] There would be no objection to a garden of remembrance in north-west Leicestershire and no objection to a garden of remembrance near Gilroes cemetery. The objection is to having a crematorium in an area where there is no garden of remembrance. If the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) would like to intervene again with any more helpful suggestions, I would be most pleased to give way.
This matter is treated in the city of Leicester as one of very great consequence. Two parts of the city are represented by hon. Members who have seen fit to sign a motion saying that they would like the crematorium to be in the third part. The House may draw its own conclusions about that. From out of the country —yea, yea, from the bushes and the fields—have emerged hon. Members—some of them now listening, some moving around chatting — in order to suggest that in my constituency there should be planted a garden with no earth, no soil, no rose, no tree, no shade, no leaf; a garden where nobody can sit after a cremation and contemplate, as human beings all over the world do, and are entitled to do.

Mr. Cowans: I rebuke my hon. and learned Friend, because it is not right that he should concern himself about hon. Gentlemen opposite who are sitting in discussion. What he does not know is that they have got their heads together to see whether they can find that field in Harborough. Perhaps he could consider whether, if they find the field, they could take the crematorium as well?

Mr. Janner: With respect, I have enough problems dealing with Leicester, West. The hon. Member for Harborough will have many more problems dealing with Harborough after this effort than he has had, and I think that we should let him get on with it. He also has to deal

with the bishop, to whom he has refused to apologise. A lot of people will be as disgusted as this House is, with the placing before this House of the suggestion, repeated tonight, that this Bill should be passed as having the consent of the diocese when it has no such consent. What is more, his hon. Friend says that he would have no objection to having in his constituency of Leicestershire, North-West a garden of remembrance.
My case is clear. It is that it is right and proper that dignified, decent, humane and compassionate arrangements should be made for crematoria, but not in places where the establishment of one is opposed by the people who live in the area, by the BMA, by those who run crematoria in Britain, by the diocese and on the basis of there being a garden of remembrance when there is no green, no garden and no soil.
It is certainly opposed on the basis that the garden of remembrance should be across one of the busiest roads in the county of Leicestershire, in a churchyard. It should certainly not be established in such a place when the Committee was deceived into passing it on the basis that the bishop and the diocese had agreed to the garden of remembrance being in the churchyard, even across a dangerous road with constant traffic, so that people might be knocked down. In other words, there is no place for a garden of remembrance.

Mr. Patrick Ground: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the condition that the Committee suggested should be imposed on the planning application? Has he ever seen such a condition? Is he in the least comforted by the condition that
the equipment for the burning of human remains…shall operate so as not to create any smoke or smell"?
Is he happy about the delay that would take place should anyone bring an enforcement action to enforce that condition?

Mr. Soames: They would be underdone.

Mr. Ground: Has he ever seen such a condition before?

Mr. Soames: Medium rare.

Mr. Janner: I wondered, when the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) began that intervention by referring to me as his hon. and learned Friend, what he intended to say, but it is clear that sanity and compassion are not confined to the Opposition Benches. This is not a party matter. I believe that the condition to which he refers is better in the Bill than out, so that if by some awful quirk of parliamentary fate this dreadful Bill becomes law, there would be some possibility of enforcement thereafter.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am happy with that condition. My answer must be no, for two reasons. First, on powerful expert information that I have, it is not possible to operate a crematorium completely without smoke or smell. Secondly, I am unwilling for the experiment to see whether it would be possible to do it without smoke or smell to take place in my constituency. I should prefer it to take place in Harborough, in Leicestershire, North-West or in a field or garden, but certainly not smack in the centre of my constituency on one of the busiest streets in the whole of the midlands where the traffic flows by at the rate of thousands of vehicles an hour in a never-ending stream, against the


wishes of the diocese, the bishop, the crematoria operators, the BMA, the local residents and all those who live, work and sleep in the vicinity.
I have had the misfortune to see the cremating of people in various parts of the world. There is no happy way of dealing with the end. As General de Gaulle once remarked, life is a marvellous voyage and its end is shipwreck. He might have said that life is a marvellous voyage and that sometimes at the end the ship gets burned. Throughout the world, decent and compassionate people try, in their various ways, to see what can be done to ease the pain and burden.
After all, the person who has died, whether he or she has gone to Heaven or elsewhere, has gone from the earth. It is those who remain on whom this crematorium is to be imposed. Those who remain will have to suffer from the imposition of this wholly unwanted "facility" to be planted in my constituency by people from outside who probably do not know the area and who even talk about the garden of remembrance when there is not a scrap of soil, not a tree, a leaf or a plant.
This is a horrific, horrible, uncompassionate, ill-conceived and misrepresented Bill. Had it been placed before the Committee in a way that showed that the bishop and diocese were against it, which it was not; had it been placed before the Committee with a frank admission that they had not even been consulted, which they were not; and had the Committee been told that this patch of land, that this churchyard across the flow of traffic, would not be available, which it is not; I doubt whether even that Committee, after all its interminable sessions, could conceivably have placed the Bill before the House, even with the provision to which the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston drew attention.
The Bill has all those defects. It would establish a crematorium in the wrong place, it is uncompassionate, it would be on a busy road and there would be no garden of remembrance.

Mr. Soames: Some hon. Members may have received a briefing letter from Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge—I gather that it was sent out in the middle of February—in which it was clearly implied that permission for this churchyard had already been given. It was implicit in the statement that it would probably be the churchyard of All Saints. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to make the case that that was a complete misrepresentation of the facts in that there is no such formula available for that to happen, and that the Bill should fall on that ground alone.

Mr. Janner: I happily adopt what the hon. Gentleman says. However, the Bill is not founded on that ground of failure alone. It is founded on all the others. I make no apology to the House for having taken due time to explain the feelings of my constituents and for expressing the views of the BMA, of the crematoria operators and, above all, of the people who live and work in the area. I make no apology for asking the House to consider with great care this bad Bill and roundly to reject it by whatever method is proper in the eyes of the Chair.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I shall not detain

the House for long. As we have heard, the proposals in the Bill clearly arouse strong feelings on both sides. While the Government do not wish to take sides in the argument, it may be helpful, to clarify the Government's position, if I mention a few of the issues that have arisen.
The House understands that Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge wish to install cremation equipment in their existing funeral director's premises in Leicester, and hon. Members will be aware that they need to promote a private Bill for that purpose only to overcome the restrictions in section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902, which prohibits the construction of crematoria within 50 yards of any public highway or, unless the owner and occupier agree, within 200 yards of any dwelling.
There have been a number of occasions on which Parliament has agreed to relax the restrictions in the 1902 Act in particular cases, and in the light of those, the Government took the view that Parliament should decide whether the restrictions should be waived for the benefit of Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge.
It would be invidious for the Government, on the basis of the information likely to be available to us, to conclude that a waiver would be appropriate in one such case but not in another. In the circumstances of this Bill, it was clear that the Committee on the Bill would have to consider all the evidence in detail.
I recognise, however, that the Committee felt that it was inappropriate for parliamentary Committees to have to take on the role of "planning tribunals" — as it described them in its special report — and it recommended that urgent consideration should be given to the repeal of section 5 of the 1902 Act. As my hon. Friend who is now the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy said when speaking for the Government on Second Reading, the siting restrictions in the 1902 Act are not necessarily the most modern way of dealing with these matters.
We realise, however, that there are arguments for and against repeal of the 1902 restrictions. On the one hand, there is the view that nowadays one should be able to rely on the planning system to ensure that crematoria are judiciously sited. It was on that basis that the opportunity was taken, in the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, to rescind the requirement under section 1 of the Cremation Act 1952 to obtain my Department's approval of the site and plans of any proposed crematorium.
That does not, of course, mean that my Department no longer has any kind of role here. If, for whatever reason, an application for planning permission were refused by the local planning authority concerned, and the applicant subsequently appealed, the case would then come to my Department for determination.
On the other hand, one has to recognise that strong views are held against the idea of repealing the 1902 restrictions. There are, of course, a number of precedents in local Acts for partially waiving the restrictions, but approvals given under the 1952 Act for the siting of crematorium projects have generally been within the framework of these restrictions. There can be no doubt that the organisations making up what is called the "cremation movement" regard the section 5 restrictions as having set the tone for crematorium siting in this country, and thus having greatly helped to make the practice of cremation as widely acceptable to the public as it has now become.
The Government will, as the Committee has recommended, consider repeal; but I emphasise that no


decision will be taken without the cremation movement's case having been fully taken into account. Meanwhile, I take this opportunity of informing the House that we propose to bring crematorium projects within the classes of "bad neighbour" developments to which section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 applies. That means that applications for planning permission for such projects would have to be advertised, and any objections to them would have to be taken into account by local planning authorities in determining the applications and we are now having consultations.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose——

Mr. Macfarlane: I am reluctant to give way, because I am not introducing this private Bill.

Mr. Straw: It is true that the Minister is not introducing the Bill but the Government are bound to take a view, if only through inertia in letting the Bill come before the House in the way that they have.
Is it appropriate to use the private Bill procedure to seek such a major departure from a public statute which has worked well for so many years?

Mr. Macfarlane: Many issues have been raised and the Government took due note of discussions in Committee and the representations that were made. We are now having consultations.
The Committee recommended that emissions from both existing and future crematoria should be more stringently controlled. First, my Department has little evidence that smoke and smell from crematoria have caused significant problems in recent years. A number of controls are applied to crematoria emissions. The grit and dust arrestment plant and the chimney heights are approved under the Clean Air Acts. There is an absolute prohibition — also in the Clean Air Acts—on the production of dark smoke. If a crematorium is in a smoke control area, it may not produce smoke at all. There is also the long-stop power available to local authorities under the Public Health Act 1936 to require emissions to be abated, provided that the emissions are adjudged to be a nuisance as defined in the Act.
The control powers are really quite strong. However, I take note of what the Committee says about the need for tighter control. It took a lot of evidence and went into the matter most carefully. Those are important issues. I am also conscious that many crematorium furnaces are due for renewal with the next five to 10 years. I am pleased to say, therefore, that the Government propose to consider, with the manufacturing industry, the preparation of tighter technical specification for new furnaces.
In addition, the House may recollect that in its response to the fifth report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution, the Government announced that they would undertake a comprehensive review of air pollution control legislation. That review is under way, and will encompass the Clean Air Act powers to which I referred earlier. I believe that the House will accept that the Government's response to the Committee's recommendation demonstrates a proper recognition of the need for action and I am grateful for the points that it raised.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: I am not from Leicester or from the midlands, but the Bill has wider implications. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has made clear, if the Bill

is approved tonight it will be accepted as a precedent for the rest of Britain. I represent an inner-city area and I find it incomprehensible that such a proposal should even be considered by the House of Commons in this way. It is even more remarkable that the Committee—I note that the Chairman, the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), is present; perhaps we shall have the benefit of his advice—came to the conclusion that it did.
Throughout this century, since cremation has become more desirable, one thing that stands out above all others is that generally crematoria operate in nice, green surroundings. Many people today prefer cremation to the old-fashioned type of burial because they feel that their loved ones will be resting in happier and more attractive surrounding than they otherwise would.
Tonight it seems that the promoters of the Bill are attempting to put the clock back, not 50 years but more than a century. This is a thoroughly bad Bill and I hope that the House will reject it.

Mr. Roger Moate: It had not been my intention to join the debate at this stage, but it seems to have developed into a broad, almost Third Reading debate, so perhaps I should take the opportunity to make one or two points as the person who had the privilege—it became rather a strained privilege after 25 days—of having been Chairman of the Committee. That Committee was particularly onerous and those hon. Members who served on it undertook a considerable task and performed a great duty to the House of Commons.
We are presented with a considerable difficulty because, having listened to the argument for 25 days, having heard both sides and having been into some of the points that have been raised in enormous detail, it is tempting to intervene and to take almost a partisan point on the issues that are given a broad brush treatment in a debate such as this.

Mr. Janner: As the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that what the bishop said is correct? The Committee did not know that he and the diocese were opposed to the Bill and that the churchyard concerned would not be available.

Mr. Moate: I shall come to that point. The hon. and learned Gentleman must present his case in his own way. I do not want to take a partisan attitude. Nevertheless, I support the conclusions to which the Committee came and would vote in support of the conclusions to which I and others came.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he had read the minutes. Frankly, I began to doubt that he could have done. I began to doubt whether he knew all the facts that had been presented, in the light of the way that he dealt with the case today. Obviously, how he deals with that is his affair. I can understand the depth of his feelings and those of his constituents, but he did not do justice to the amount of consideration that had been given to the points that have been raised.
We were presented with a great deal of evidence about the All Saints churchyard. We were given to understand —I have no reason to doubt it—that negotiations were under way with the church authorities on the possible purchase of that churchyard. I believe—I do not intend to check through 25 days of minutes—that even figures


were mentioned for the price that was being negotiated. That it should be a garden of remembrance seemed to me to be a right, proper and reverent use of a religious site. To those of us who are concerned about what happens to redundant churches, that seems an attractive and sensible use.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has criticised other hon. Members for not listening, but he is not listening to me. If the bishop was not advised, that is a matter for the internal management of church affairs. I have no reason to doubt that proper and genuine negotiations took place. It was because we could foresee that imposing such a condition on the promoters would give the whip hand to the opponents that we added the alternative that if that site was not available, an alternative site should be found. The alternative site should be subject to approval by the planning authorities, and if those authorities did not give their approval, there should be scope for arbitration. We could not have been fairer than that.

Mr. Janner: I apologise for having been seeking guidance while the hon. Member was speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that with 25 days of evidence it is not possible to remember everything, but I believe that my recollection is absolutely correct. There was discussion, and a price of £30,000 was mentioned. But the fact remains that neither the bishop nor the diocese was asked to give evidence to the Committee, nor was there any evidence that the bishop or the diocese had agreed or would agree to the sale. If that is correct, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to tell the House why the Committee saw fit to conclude its considerations without even asking the bishop, when it was going to base part of its decision on the unreal possibility of the churchyard being available.

Mr. Moate: I shall resist the temptation to go through the many points raised in the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman may use his considerable and formidable court room techniques, but I am not going to answer in that way. The hon. and learned Gentleman is changing the subject and the point.
The deliberations of the Committee were held over some five months, because of the intervention of the general election. After that time, the subject was very well known. I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who again is not listening, that if the church objected to the proposals about All Saints churchyard — All Saints churchyard was frequently mentioned during the proceedings — it is up to the church to explain why objections were not made while the Committee was sitting. At no time was it said that the churchyard was not available. Had that been said, I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Committee would have taken the objections on board, because considerable importance was attached to the garden of remembrance.

Mr. Soames: I know how carefully my hon. Friend investigated these matters. When, as Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend visited the site with the Committee to assess the matter that it was discussing—[Interruption]—was he able to see the impact that this will have on the garden of remembrance, if it is allowed to go ahead?

Mr. Moate: The Committee unanimously decided not to visit the site. My hon. Friend has not had the privilege of serving on such a Committee, but he has many years of experience in this House. Before he starts to expostulate, he should remember that it is not the normal practice of Committees to visit sites under consideration. The Committees are asked to consider principles, not to act as a planning committee. It is therefore proper for counsel to promote the case of the petitioners or objectors in this House, where everything is on the record.
We had a weight of evidence before us, including a vast array of photographs. We knew a great deal about Vaughan way. That is the name of the street. The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps referring to the high street, which is a name never used in the Committee. He ought to get it right, because the area is in his constituency. We knew the details very well indeed. I deny that the Committee was not familiar with all the arguments about the site.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: I accept that, with his experience, my hon. Friend is right about not visiting the site. However, although, because of custom and practice, they did not deem it worthwhile to visit the site, my hon. Friend tells us that the members of the Committee spent 25 days studying photographs, and that is just the same thing. Would it not have been better to visit the site and to see, for example, the enormous petrol tank at the rear of the building, which could easily blow up?

Mr. Moate: All those concerned know the arguments for and against visits. My hon. Friend has seen the petrol tank——

Mr. Soames: Only in photographs.

Mr. Moate: Yet my hon. Friend is an expert on the subject. The members of the Committee did not agree about all the issues, but they all agreed that they should not visit the site. We were familiar with the petrol tanks, the petrol pumps, the parking places and the location of traffic lights. If we had not been, that would be a criticism not of the Committee but of the way in which the counsel on either side had presented their case.

Mr. Rooker: I understand that the membership of the Committee changed as a result of the general election. The hon. Gentleman states that the Committee made a unanimous decision not to visit the site. Was that decision made before or after the election? If the membership of the Committee changed, how could all the members of the Committee have been familiar with all the details?

Mr. Moate: Technically, it was a newly constituted Committee. With a new Parliament, it became a new Committee. There was a change, and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) then became the new member.

Mr. Rooker: Wrong again.

Mr. Moate: I apologise. It was the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) who joined the Committee. He diligently read all the previous proceedings.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He did, but you did not.

Mr. Moate: I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is shouting, but he contributes nothing to our debates.

Mr. Skinner: Some members of the Committee may have been diligent, but the hon. Gentleman was not so diligent. He is not even sure who was serving on the Committee at any one time.

Mr. Moate: That is a most valuable point.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly joined us after the election and studied its earlier proceedings most diligently. The newly constituted Committee decided not to visit the site. It is nonsense to suggest that the Committee was not as familiar with the site in question and the relevant facts as any Committee has ever been on a comparable matter—or even more familiar.
I do not want to become involved in an argument about this point, but it has been suggested that the Committee was not thorough in its deliberations, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that we were deceived. I ought to put the record straight. The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong to suggest that we were deceived about the churchyard.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What about the bishop?

Mr. Moate: If the bishop was not privy to the negotiations entered into by the church, that is a criticism of the bishop, and bishop ought to apologise to us. [Interruption.] If the church had strong ojections, there was ample opportunity for those concerned to make representations to the Committee. It is a matter of record that they did not do so.

Mr. Spencer: Is it not the case that the Bill was amended in Committee to take account of the point now made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)? The matter was dealt with extensively in Committee, and the Bill has been amended as a result. It expressly provides that, in default of the churchyard being available, some other place can be adopted by agreement, and in default of agreement there is procedure for the selection of another appropriate place.

Mr. Moate: As I have already said, that is exactly what we did. We all understood how worried people were about the garden of remembrance and we thought that the promoters had gone a long way to meet that worry.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Moate: This must be the last time that I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Janner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Accepting, as I do not, that the alternative was included because the Committee was waiting to see what the bishop thought, when it could have asked, and accepting that the Committee would have preferred to have a garden of remembrance, can the hon. Gentleman show anywhere—as he did not go to the site perhaps he can do so from a map—where a garden of remembrance could be put within a reasonable walking distance?

Mr. Moate: I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, who cannot resist the opportunity to make cheap cracks, that we went into great detail——

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is nothing wrong about asking an hon. Member to state the results of the Committee's inquiry to which he is referring when he has said that the Committee gave

alternative methods—one of which was that it should be in a churchyard, and another in a garden of remembrance to be stated elsewhere—to have that referred to——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a point of information and not a point of order on which I can rule.

Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One is entitled to ask for a withdrawal when that type of personal attack is made without the slightest foundation of fact, reality or understanding.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It must be a matter for the hon. Member concerned.

Mr. Moate: It is not so much the substance of what the hon. and learned Gentleman says as the manner in which he says it. If he looks at the record he will see what I mean. I am surprised, because I have always had rather more respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman than that.

Mr. Rooker: He is at it again.

Mr. Moate: I said that the Church could have made representations but that it did not. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the British Medical Association, which also could have made representations but did not. There were many opportunities for it to do so, and had the petitioners against the Bill thought that there was a valid argument on the basis of the BMA's objection, I am sure that they would have brought objections to that effect.
I should like to support a couple of points that we made in our special report. My hon. Friend the Minister has made a statement which I warmly welcome. I am extremely grateful that the Department and the Government have so clearly considered the recommendations, which are general and, in many ways, separate from this matter. I hope that something will flow from that. He said that there had not been widespread anxiety and complaints from the crematorium but the evidence which the Committee received suggested that nuisance caused by the existing crematorium was far more widespread than could leave us satisfied.
The House should know that it was the witnesses of the Cremation Society of Great Britain Ltd. and The Federation of British Cremation Authorities who pointed out how widespread was the amount of smoke and the smell caused by crematoria. One of the witnesses gave a catalogue of visits that he had made and said how bad the problem was. There was other evidence which suggested that present practices fall far below the standard that the country is entitled to expect. That is why we urge that the controls be more strictly applied.
The other crucial issue was whether the House should consider this issue. For all the important issues that concern us now, it is significant that we are only considering it because of a requirement in the 1902 Act that a crematorium should not be allowed within 50 yards of a highway or 200 yards of a house. Oddly enough, in London the requirement is that a residence should be no less than 100 yards away. I do not know why there should be such a difference in human sensitivities, but there is. It is almost by a legislative quirk that the matter came to the House—other bad neighbour developments would not.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that, in future, crematoria would come within the bad neighbour rules. It is significant that the bad neighbour procedures were


followed in this case. It would be far better if planning issues such as we are engaged in now were dealt with by local authorities. It is up to them to judge a suitable place for a crematorium and whether they prefer a lawned to an urban crematorium. It is a planning matter. No two matters are exactly the same, but we are discussing bad neighbour developments generally and I suggest that many planning decisions are harder than this. They are decided by local authorities, and if the applicant is dissatisfied, the case comes before the Secretary of State on appeal. That is how this matter should be dealt with. It is all about traffic volumes and smoke emissions and they are matters which planning authorities consider all the time. That is why we recommend that, in future, such applications should not come to Parliament but should be dealt with in the normal planning way.

Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend's views on planning are correct but, bearing in mind the considerable work and effort that he and his colleagues have put into researching this proposition, does he believe that this is a decent, honourable and good place for bereaved people to bring their dead to cremate them? It is in the middle of a busy road near a crowded street.

Mr. Moate: Perhaps I can put the following question to my hon. Friend.[HON.MEMBERS:"Answer."] I shall answer. My hon. Friend shows the type of preference that I would have — a cremation in what we now call a lawned crematorium. However, it is not up to us always to impose our taste——

Mr. Janner: On my constituents.

Mr. Moate: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps talking about his constituents. I remind him that, even though he said it was a mistake, the local authority gave planning permission.

Mr. Soames: It has revoked it.

Mr. Moate: It has not. It has changed its mind, but it has not gone so far as revoking it. Local authorities make mistakes, and if they do so, they should go through the normal procedures to revoke a decision. It is simply because we have this oddity of a parliamentary procedure that we have intervened in the normal pattern of revocation. If that is what the authority feels we should do, it should take the necessary steps. By saying that it is a matter for a local authority's decision, I am saying that it is that authority's right to revoke a decision if it so wishes.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman must accept that the siting of a crematorium is plainly sui generis. There are no comparable examples and the matter must be examined on its own merits. It is unique. Does he accept that whether crematoria should be in lawned areas or in urban areas is a matter of public policy which is legitimately a matter for the Government and the House?

Mr. Moate: I agree with the hon. Gentleman only to the extent that this might be a matter on which guidelines might be drawn. I suggest that it is not a planning matter which should come to the House.
I have immense respect for the cremation movement. Its approach to cremation has produced enormously high standards which have generated support for it. I do not want to change that. However, it is not up to us to dictate

for ever and a day that there must be lawned crematoria, because not everyone in urban surroundings necessarily wants that. Since the possibility of competition—or, as I prefer to call it, consumer choice — has been introduced, there has been a dramatic improvement in the facilities offered at municipal crematoria. The Committee had ample evidence of that.
Had any hon. Member here today been on that Committee, he would not have been impressed by the evidence that we were given about the standards, the quality and the facilities available previously at municipal crematoria. If the possibility exists of expressing a consumer choice between big and beautiful lawned crematoria and a proper, respectful urban crematorium, it is up to the individual to exercise it. We are not necessarily right, therefore, to impose for ever and a day our own requirements for lawned crematoria. This alternative type of crematorium should be considered. It is because I believe that the choice should be available and that it will be for the benefit of people generally — and for the benefit of the people of Leicester, if I dare suggest it to the hon. and learned Member—that I think that this deserves support. If however, the local authority thinks that it does not, it is up to it to revoke the planning procedures in the usual way.
We learned a great deal in the Committee. Many of us had illusions about cremating techniques. Many believed that, immediately after the cremation, the strewing of the ashes in the garden of remembrance takes place; but it is usually done on a different day. The location of the garden of remembrance, therefore, is not as important as its quality. Some of the photographs that we saw of the way in which ashes had been strewn, even at the Gilroes crematorium, left much to be desired.
We should take into account the fact that the promoters of the Bill are a highly respected firm of undertakers, who I understand have conducted their business and earned much local respect for over 100 years. It is quite legitimate to argue about whether there should be a crematorium there, but I think it is right to believe that a firm of that repute, with so much at stake—its whole business—would not engage in something that was disrespectaful or that treated the dead with less than the reverence required at the time.
The firm has a chapel. The buildings have been used for years for this purpose but not for cremation itself. It is quite legitimate to say that there should not be a crematorium there but it is also right to acknowledge that the firm would conduct all these affairs in a reverential and proper manner.
I had not meant to be lured into some of the more partisan arguments involved, but I thought it right to welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said in response to the Committee's report, and to deal with some of the factual errors of the hon. and learned Member.
I believe that the Committee was not decieved, and that it came to the right conclusion. I hope that the Bill will proceed on the basis that we recommended it, but if the planning authority decides, because of local feeling, that it should not proceed, the proper way is for it to go through normal planning procedures and revoke it, if it thinks that that is right for the people of Leicester.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I should like to begin by referring to the report which the hon.
Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has just delivered to the House, coupled with the absence of any reference by the Under-Secretary of State to one aspect of that report. As far as I know, the Under-Secretary said what the Government were planning to do in relation to the law on cremation. I should have thought that that was a good reason for the promoters immediately to withdraw the Bill.
The last sentence in paragraph 4 of the report, when referring to cremation and undertaking being under the same control, says:
This was also the subject of a Home Office report, the Home Office believing that the existing separation may lessen the risk of illegal cremation.
It goes on in paragraph 6 to make a point which is relevant, bearing in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The Committee
were thus asked, purely as a result of geography, to make a decision which the Committee was told could have implications for public policy in the field of crime prevention.
There was no reference to the Home Office report, from which I have just quoted by the Under-Secretary of State. It was not taken up by the Minister who was giving a view of the Government neither for nor against the Bill. I understand the position of Ministers dealing with private Bills, but the Home Secretary put before the Committee a statement which I shall read to the House. It said:
The Bill would place in the hands of a single agency the trust of obtaining on behalf of the relatives of the deceased the necessary medical certificates, (Forms B and C) required for cremation purposes, of nominating as the cremation authority the medical referee whose duty it is to scrutinise those certificates and to authorise cremation, and of carrying out the cremation itself. There is a possibility, to put it no higher, that if these duties are combined (they have hitherto been divided between the funeral directors acting on behalf of the relatives of the deceased and the cremation authority) the safeguards built into the cremation procedures to prevent the premature disposal of a body for the purpose of concealing crime may be lessened. This is particularly true where the funeral directors managing the crematorium are under pressure to cremate within 24 hours of death.
It concluded:
Since the Cremation Regulations were first introduced in 1903, no crematorium has been under the same management as a firm of funeral directors as part of a single business. The Secretary of State would draw the committee's attention to the point of public policy which these effects of the Bill involve.
Here is the Home Secretary putting a considered statement before the Committee—a statement which is referred to in the report of the Chairman of the Committee —yet there is no comment, one way or the other, in any detail. So far as I am aware — and I listened carefully to the Minister — he made no reference whatsoever to the views of the Home Secretary. I ask the Minister whether that statement still represents the considered views of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Macfarlane: That statement was given to the Special Committee, setting it up, so it clearly represents the views of the Home Office. The Home Secretary was concerned that a precedent would be considered to have been set— although I hasten to add that no reflection was made on Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge. Nevertheless, he felt bound to take into account the fact that by installing cremators as part of a funeral director's business a precedent would be set. The Committee touched on that, and the report and the contribution made by my right hon. and learned Friend is of great importance.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record. I am not antagonistic to the Minister, but it is important that the Department's view is clearly stated in the House.

Mr. Spencer: Does the hon. Gentleman know what checks are carried out to see that the certificate authorising cremation refers to the body that is ultimately cremated? Will he accept that the current practice relies extensively on the integrity of the funeral director to see that it refers to the body in respect of which it has been granted, and that that integrity will still be effective even if the Bill is passed?

Mr. Rooker: The point I was making in putting on record the Home Secretary's statement was that the unique thing about the Bill is that it would place in the hands of a single agency all the tasks to which I referred, including, of course, nominating the medical referee. It would place these in the hands of a single agency — Ginns and Gutteridge. I make no offensive reference to this firm. Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge are highly respected funeral directors who have carried on their business of undertaking, at which they are experts, for a very long time. They are seeking to change the nature of their business and one of the effects of the Bill is to bring under their control, as a single agency, those tasks which are at present shared between different agencies. That is a very important point to which the Home Secretary drew the attention of the Committee.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. As he says, this is unique. Ginns and Gutteridge is an excellent firm. Does he agree, however, that in America, where these things are normal and where institutions of this kind are run of the mill, the most appalling mistakes are made and that there are well-known horror stories? This must be a matter of the greatest possible concern to the House.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member is right. I should imagine that, when the House reaches amendments selected by Mr. Speaker—I hope that it will not get that far—Members on both sides of the argument as well as of the House will be able to raise those points in detail, which will be an important aspect of proceedings, but which, I repeat, I hope we shall not reach.
This is not a party political matter, but it is a highly political matter of public policy. The purpose of the Floor of the House of Commons is to provide a forum for the discussion of such matters. When the day comes that we start to be defensive about our role, we might as well pack up shop. The issue is not privatisation or private crematoria versus public crematoria.
It was the management at the crematorium at Perry Barr which drew my attention to the Bill in a letter, with enclosures, dated 25 January. At the outset I felt a certain uneasiness in my own capabilities in that I did not know about the Bill. I have served in the House for 10 years, and I have participated in private Bill legislation on the Floor of the House. I have served as a member of a Committee considering a private Bill, as has the hon. Member for Faversham, although the Committee on which I sat did not sit for as long as the one that considered this Bill and I was not the Chairman of it.
I am well aware that it is the duty of hon. Members every November, when the time comes for lodging private


legislation, to keep their eyes on what is coming before the House. All sorts of measures pass through the House of Commons under private business without being debated. The view is taken that there is nothing contentious about them and that all the problems have been sorted out. If the Bill is opposed, it is thought that the Special Committee procedure will take care of any difficulties that arise.
The Perry Barr crematorium is lawned. It is on the edge of a park, it borders allotments and it is adjacent to a busy main road. It is a private crematorium, owned by the Great Southern Group, which also owns the crematorium in the Prime Minister's constituency. The Prime Minister has been told in a letter from the Great Southern Group dated 3 April that if the Bill passes through the House of Commons the crematorium in her constituency, which is at St. Marylebone, will be under threat of closure. The group calls upon the Prime Minister to vote against the Bill tonight. It will be interesting to see whether the right hon. Lady will do so on what is for her a constituency matter.
The crematorium in the constituency of the Prime Minister is passing from the ownership of the Westminster city council to that of the Great Southern Group for reasons that I shall not go into. According to the letter from the group, the economics of the change of ownership would be undermined if the Bill were passed and enacted. Those facts reinforce my contention that this is not a private versus public crematoria argument. It is not an argument that should be considered on party lines.
When I received the statement that was issued on behalf of the promoters a couple of days ago, like other hon. Members, I was taken by the statement in paragraph 3, which reads:
After a full debate the Bill was given a Second Reading by your honourable House on 14 February 1983.
The debate started on Monday 14 February at 7 o'clock sharp, which is normal for private business, and it was moved by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). As far as I am aware, the debate concluded with a Division at 8.15 pm. There may be a printing error in Hansard, but I doubt it. The Bill was carried by 88 votes to 54.
I do not consider that to be a full debate for it continued for less than the three hours which were allotted. No motions and no instructions were debated. It matters to me not one jot how many times the Committee has sat, although I pay tribute to the perseverence of all hon. Members who have served on it. When a Member of this place is summoned to attend a Private Bill Committee, he or she can be fined for non-attendance. A Member is not allowed to be absent from such a Committee although that is possible when he or she is a member of a Select Commitee or a Standing Committee. The rules for Private Bill Committees are onerous in the extreme. However, as I have said, it matters to me not one jot that the Committee had 25 sittings. That must be set against the debate on the Floor of the House on Second Reading, which lasted for one hour and 15 minutes, and which was described by the promoters as a full debate.
I regret that the hon. Member for Harborough is not in his place, although I see that he is within my hearing. It is deplorable that he should have sought by a procedural motion to stop any further debate on the Bill at this stage. The motion extended to any hon. Member who was not a Member of this place before the general election or to any hon. Member who did not serve on the Committee. It was

designed to prevent Members in that category from debating a supreme issue of public policy on the Floor of the House. The issue is whether we should start making crematoria look like factories. I deplore the attempt that has been made to stifle debate.
I shall confine myself to the rules of debate on a private Bill and make one or two remarks about the Bill's contents. I shall not allude to the amendments. It has been said on several occasions that Ginns and Gutteridge is good at its job and I have no doubt that it is a trustworthy firm. However, clause 2 states:
In this Act 'the Company' means Ginns and Gutteridge Limited and includes their successors".
The Bill does not apply only to the one company that is owned by one group, although I understand that it is a long-standing family business. The Bill is seeking permission for the special powers within it to be passed on to another company or another family at some stage in future. I object to clause 2, which is the interpretation clause.
Clause 3 is entitled "Provision of crematorium" and it attempts to define the premises. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) covered some of the details of location in Leicester. He was in order to do so and the occupant of the Chair would have called him to order if he had strayed from it. Clause 3 delineates the premises. It describes them as
227 square metres or thereabouts
at a particular address in Vaughan way. It says that it was outlined on a map signed by the hon. Member and deposited in the Private Bill Office to show that that was the exact location. I object in principle to a crematorium on an inner city site. It would not matter whether it was owned and run by the funeral directors. The point of principle is that the crematorium is on an inner city site, in factory-type premises.

Mr. Spencer: Does the hon. Gentleman object to chapels of rest being on such sites? On occasions they may contain as many as 15 deceased persons who are visited by friends and relatives.

Mr. Rooker: I have visited chapels of rest of funeral directors in the inner city of Birmingham.

Mr. Spencer: What is the difference?

Mr. Rooker: The difference is that people do not generally go there in family groups, and services for the deceased are not conducted there. It is a visit to the chapel of rest—no more and no less. It may not happen on the day of the funeral; it may be the day before. In other words, it is not relevant and there is no connection between that aspect of bereavement and going to the crematorium for the service. There is a substantial difference. If the hon. and learned Member cannot see the difference, I cannot convince him that there is one.
I object in principle to a crematorium in inner-city premises. The premises may have a chapel of rest, a 6,000 gallon petrol tank and dining facilities, so the wake may be taking place on one floor while the coffin is being cremated in the basement. This is an obscenity in relation to the conduct of a cremation ceremony.

Mr. Farr: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware that this is happening already in many municipal crematoria. It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The City


of London has an identical crematorium in the basement of its premises, which are probably within a mile of the Palace of Westminster where we are talking this evening.

Mr. Rooker: If I had the opportunity as a Member of Parliament to go into the Lobby I should vote against that. It is not relevant to the argument. We are discussing the uniqueness of the Bill and the funeral directors who wish to expand their business. I did not have the opportunity to express a view about the premises referred to by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It is a quirk of law that hon. Members have the opportunity to vote on this proposal.
Clause 3(2)(a), a paragraph put in by the Committee, says:
No cremations of human remains shall take place on the land specified in subsection (1) above until the Company has acquired
and so on. I do not want to go over all the arguments about whether the company has acquired a garden of remembrance; nor do I wish to enter into the argument about the bishops.
The situation has changed completely since Second Reading. When the hon. Member for Harborough was speaking then, there was an exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Harborough as follows:
"Mr. Farr: I have learnt to treat the hon. Gentleman's interventions with respect. They always have great merit. The company hopes to make it clear during the Committee stage that a special garden of remembrance and rest will be provided for the ashes.
Ron Lewis: Near the crematorium?
Mr. Farr: At the crematorium." — [Official Report, 14 February 1983; Vol. 37, c. 72]
The hon. Member for Harborough said, "At the crematorium." There was no question of a garden of remembrance at a local church or at other premises within walking distance, driving distance or flying distance. He said, "At the crematorium."
One can only assume that when the hon. Member for Harborough was moving the Second Reading on behalf of the promoters he was speaking to the brief provided. In the circumstances, that is all that one can do. The question arises as to the good faith of the brief which must have been provided for the hon. Member. What I have heard in the debate about the correspondence from the Church, added to what was said on Second Reading, leads me to believe that the House was misled, though not by the hon. Member for Harborough. I make no imputation against him, because he must have been speaking to a brief supplied by the promoters. There was an attempt deliberately to mislead the House to get the Bill passed. The impression was given that there would be a garden of remembrance and that it would be at the crematorium. It clearly states "at the crematorium". Therefore, I object to the fact that the Committee has been forced to insert into the Bill clause 3(2).

Mr. Straw: Does my hon. Friend agree that while no imputation of bad faith can be made against the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fair), he owes the House an explanation of how he came to make such an extraordinary and inaccurate statement that the garden of remembrance would be at the crematorium? Perhaps he might be advised to do so now.

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Member for Harborough wishes to speak, I shall give way, and if he wishes to take advice in the meantime, that is fair enough by me.

Mr. Farr: The matter is quite simple. In the debate in February last year, I said that Ginns and Gutteridge would have liked to have a garden of remembrance at the crematorium. That has since proved to be impossible, and subsequently it attempted to get the use of a churchyard several hundred yards away from the crematorium. That plan has now fallen through. To put at rest once and for all the issue whether a garden of remembrance for the scattering of ashes and for the conduct of small services will be available, I can tell the House that a site for the garden of remembrance has been acquired and is in the possession of the company.

Mr. Rooker: When the hon. Member rose—having failed in his attempt to stop any debate at 7 o'clock—to move consideration, why did he not give that information to the House? Why is it not possible to give chapter and verse for where the site is? Why was no response made to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West when he made his point about the churchyard?

Mr. Farr: I have given the facts now because I have been given the information recently by the promoters of the Bill. I ask the House to accept my word that a site has been acquired and will be treated for the proper purpose——

Mr. Ernie Ross: Where?

Mr. Farr: —in a reverential manner, and not in the jocular manner used by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) when he referred to this particular purpose. Many of us think that a garden of remembrance is a special place. I should be happy to have it in my constituency, wherever it may be.

Mr. Rooker: Clause 3(2) says that there should be no cremation unless a churchyard is obtained,
or some other land which is agreed between the Company and the Leicester City Council".
This land has been acquired, but has Leicester city council agreed to it? Has the condition of the Bill that the hon. Member is seeking to get through the House been complied with? Does Leicester city council know about the site, and has it agreed to it?

Mr. Spencer: Read paragraph (b).

Mr. Rooker: Oh, "Read paragraph (b)," says the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer). That implies that Leicester city council will not agree to the land, and paragraph (b) will have to be used for the company to go to arbitration. So Leicester city council has not agreed to the land that has been obtained.

Mr. Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said that he has, through no fault of his own, only recently heard that Ginns and Gutteridge has purchased this new site to spread the ashes, it is surprising that the new site — bearing in mind that the Bill makes a specific reference to All Saints' church, Highcross street, "or some other land"—is not entered as an amendment so that we can be aware of it and judge whether the land is suitable within the context of the Bill, and be told whether Leicester city council has approved of it?

Mr. Rooker: As I understand it, it is in order for the promoters to move amendments at the consideration stage of a private Bill. They would obviously have to do it through an hon. Member, but there are no amendments down in the name of anyone remotely connected with the promoters of the Bill. We are in a bit of a pickle. More than halfway through the consideration debate we are given some new and relevant information that impinges on the Bill. Clearly, it is assumed that Leicester city council will not approve the site. It appears, from an earlier intervention from a sedentary position by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), that the matter will go to arbitration, and if that fails will end up with the Secretary of State. We have arrived at a most unsatisfactory point.

Mr. Farr: I know the hon. Gentleman well. I know also that he is sincere and believes in what he is saying. He must accept my statement on behalf of Ginns and Gutteridge that no deception or misdirection of the House was intended. Until very recently Ginns and Gutteridge believed in all good faith that the churchyard of All Saints church in Highcross street would be available. That area has a special significance to Mr. Ginns, because his grandfather's name is on a plaque inside the church.
The negotiations were proceeding happily and speedily, until recently when they came to a sudden halt. Ginns and Gutteridge has therefore taken steps and has recently acquired an alternative site. The details have not yet been submitted for approval to the city council. Those plans will be submitted in accordance with the Bill's provisions and the Secretary of State will, if necessary, determine whether the site is suitable. That is the present position.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The House is, therefore, being asked to put on the statute book a part of clause 3(2) which is wholly irrelevant, and we know it. I refer to All Saints church, Highcross street. That matter is not on the agenda for consideration at this time. Before the Bill is enacted, the reference to All Saints church in subsection 2(a) should, in all fairness and conscience, not still be in the legislation. It should be removed so that people do not accuse us of passing legislation which we know to be inaccurate.
I say in all fairness to the hon. Member for Harborough that, given the delicate nature of the negotiations that are to occur, he should request that consideration of the Bill be adjourned. The debate should be stopped, so that the hon. Gentleman can return on another day to tell the House whether Leicester city council has given approval to the site. Ginns and Gutteridge is not paying for our presence, other than as general taxpayers, so adjourning consideration will not impose extra costs. In view of the hon. Gentleman's statements, we would be placing gobbledegook on the statute book if we continued the debate.
Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not going to move that further consideration be adjourned. I shall leave discussion on subsection (2) because we now have better information, to which I cannot fully address my mind while speaking. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House can discuss those issues later.
I do not agree with the Committee's recommendation that section 5 of the Cremation Act 1902 should be repealed. We should not let local council planning committees free reign over local crematoria. Progress has

been made, and I am grateful for what the Under-Secretary of State said. I hope that the Government will not accept clause 3(3). That part of the Bill is objectionable.
I do not believe that the country has reached such a state that the public at large, whom we represent, are prepared to accept—I say this with no sense of acrimony to any religion—the sheer damned godlessness of this type of cremation activity occurring next to a public highway, in a building adjacent to a six-lane road, without proper parking facilities or a decent garden and with the bereaved having to walk to the chapel from nearby car parks. That is not on. I do not believe that when my or any other hon. Members' constituents see what we are being asked to approve they will say, "Yes, go on and approve it." I believe that in their hundreds and thousands they will say, "What on earth are you doing even debating such a Bill?"

Mr. Hind: rose——

Mr. Rooker: I was not aware that the hon. Member was in the Chamber, but I shall give way to him.

Mr. Hind: I have been here for some time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in many respects this is a dreadful waste of parliamentary time? We are not being asked to decide a principle—under what circumstances a cremation can take place—but what, effectively, is nothing more than a planning application that should be referred to Leicester district council? The arguments you have put forward reinforce what I have just said.

Mr. Rooker: You are putting forward no arguments, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I am. I do not consider private business brought to the Floor of the House a waste of time. However trivial it might be in the hon. Member's mind, great matters of public policy can flow from apparently minor legislation.
I shall allude briefly only to another private Bill, or I shall be ruled out of order. A private Bill was brought before the House of Commons in 1976 which involved the compulsory purchase of 47·5 acres of foreshore at Nigg bay—the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill. That land was the block on the construction of a £200 million oil refinery by Daniel K. Ludwig, the richest man in the world. The House of Commons became involved in discussing 47·5 acres of Scottish foreshore. That seemed trivial, until one realised what lay behind it in terms of energy and oil refinery policy. I make no apology, and nor should any other hon. Member, when private legislation that involves an element of major public policy, as this does, is brought before the House.
If the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) is here for some time, I hope he will remember my words when other legislation in which, for some reason, he takes an interest comes before the House which other hon. Members might question.

Mr. Moate: The Bill to which the hon. Gentleman alluded is the one on which he and I fought side by side. I agree with what he is saying about the opportunities private Bills sometimes give to discuss major matters. Once one has examined some of these minor points that give rise to major policy, is that not the time to re-examine the correct way to proceed in respect of matters relating to the Home Office and planning generally? Does he agree that this is an unsatisfactory procedure for examining the


homicidal tendencies of doctors, which is what is presupposed, or bad neighbour developments generally? Is it not time to consider how better to approach these general policies?

Mr. Rooker: For a start, I should like to reform the private Bill procedure. One of the hon. Gentleman's constituents was involved with the other Bill. That Bill had been through the Scottish Order Confirmation Bill procedure. There had been umpteen meetings in Edinburgh. In effect, it had passed its Committee stage. It was in the same parliamentary position as this Bill. We were told that it had been looked at by Members of Parliament in a Special Committee in Edinburgh. We were told that it was nothing to do with the House of Commons or hon. Members in Faversham, Perry Barr or Keighley. We were told to keep out of it, although great matters of public policy were to be debated.
The final point to which I object is the part that the Committee has inserted in clause 4. In clause 4(2) there is a reference to the equipment that will be used. The requirement is
that the equipment of the crematorium shall operate so as not at any time to create any discharge of smoke or smell from the premises".
As I understand it — I may be wrong, and we may receive further and better advice as the night goes on—this equipment has never been installed in this country.
The equipment is of American origin and is held in at least one case to have been a prime cause of a fire in an American crematorium. Therefore, it is untried and untested in this country. Modern crematorium equipment is very sophisticated. There has been increasing acceptance of the cremation movement in this century and, as that has come about, more people have realised—I hate to use the word "productivity"— that, as private profit is involved a surplus must be made for the businesses to survive. I accept that as a way of life. None the less, the sophisticated equipment that may be installed is untried and untested in this country. If I am wrong, I hope that an hon. Member will say so.
The Committee, not the promoters of the Bill, inserted new clause 2. The promoters did not promise to use equipment that would not give off smokes or smells. The Committee put in the clause. The promoters, through the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), promised that there would be a garden of remembrance at the crematorium, but they gave no commitment that the equipment would not give off smokes or smells. They have handled the matter very unprofessionally, to put it at its politest, throughout. I object to the Bill proceeding further in the House.
The Committee members have not visited the premises. I can understand their reasons. Like them, I have seen lots of photographs. I confess that I was put off by the photographs of the premises supplied by the crematorium in my area. Hon. Members receive representations from their constituents. I am sure that you have received them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members receive a mountain of bumf every day from every organisation and individual with a beef. The main thing to watch is that, in the general, non-constituency mail, crucial correspondence does not slip through the net.
The photographs of Ginns and Gutteridge's premises that were given to me by the crematorium superintendent in my area—that crematorium is in the same group that owns the one that I hope will be operated in the Prime

Minister's constituency—made me read the seven or eight pages in detail. I could not believe what the letter was about, after reading the first three paragraphs. I called on the superintendent of the Birmingham crematorium and said to him that I could not believe what I had read and asked him whether he was sure that the photographs were of premises that someone intended, in all conscience, to use as a crematorium. The pictures showed three lanes of traffic going past the premises, and exits next to Shellubrication signs, petrol pumps and advertisment hoardings. It showed a typical rear access view of industrial premises, with mechanics working on vehicles. The bereaved would be expected to go through the ordeal of facing such a scene when they went to the chapel of rest or attended the cremation.
We must put further restrictions in the Bill, if the occasion arises, to make it stronger and workable. None of the amendments on the Order Paper could be classified by any hon. Member on either side of the House—or of the argument — as a wrecking amendment. Each amendment strengthens the Bill and would make it operate better than in the form in which it has come from Committee. It is, of course, considerably better after the Committee's amendments than it was when it started its life.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Bearing in mind what he has drawn to our attention towards the end of his speech, can he tell the House, or hazard a guess, why so many hon. Members seem to be determined, even knowing those facts, that the crematorium will still go to Leicester? Why must it go there? I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to two simple questions: is the crematorium needed in Leicester and is it wanted by the people of Leicester?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to both those interesting questions is clearly no, as shown by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West in whose constituency the crematorium would be situated, and by the number of Conservative Members who have produced a private Whip.
I cannot give full answers to those questions, and I shall not repeat the rumours that I and no doubt other hon. Members have heard about why the planning committee was advised to approve the application in the first place and why it was not later advised to revoke the application —a costly process, but far less costly to the city council than the eventual bill for this little lot. I do not know why and the question has bothered me, too, since I saw the weight of support in private Whips and the partisan nature of some Conservative contributions.
One wonders why a respected company, which is good at undertaking—we do not know about cremation as it has never done any—should bring forward an obnoxious proposal to change the law of the land to secure a unique scope for its own premises. Why has the proposal been pushed so hard for so long? I do not know, but I am a naturally suspicious fellow, which sometimes gets me into trouble. I am also a nosey parker and I intend to find some answers before the next debate on this matter. In logic, the argument is against the proposers. In conscience and in public policy it is also against them. The attitude of the vast majority of British people also seems to be against them. Certainly no one in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency favours the proposal, as he has received no representations to that effect.
I do not know why the proposal has been pushed so far, but we must make sure that we get as many answers as possible and explore the thoughts, desires and wishes of the proposers as much as possible. I hope that hon. Members on both sides will ensure that that is done.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I believe that I am unique among hon. Members in having visited the Ginns and Gutteridge premises, so I speak with some knowledge in this serious matter. I believe that the site and the facilities are satisfactory and adequate. They are run by a respectable company which has been in existence since 1840 and cares about the community throughout the city of Leicester.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: No, I shall not give way.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that he had received no representations in favour of the proposal, but representations have been made to me from that part of the city. I note that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not in the Chamber. No doubt he is on television or something like that. I take great exception when he presumes to speak for the whole city.
I have visited Ginns and Gutteridge twice. I should point out to hon. Members that the company's premises are in Vaughan way, not on the high street. It is a family concern and is unique in being prepared to offer, seven days a week and 365 days a year, a 24-hour service, which genuinely cares and caters for the whole community. Hon. Members have spoken about the proposed crematorium but not about the company. It is not just a matter of private versus municipal. Why should a very good private company not be allowed to operate this new facility? We do not know what need there is for another crematorium in Leicester, but the company is prepared to offer one and it should be respected for that.
The Leiceser City Council granted planning permission on 5 October 1982. As we tried to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), that has not been revoked. Ginns and Gutteridge gave the Select Committee an undertaking that it would provide 65 car parking spaces, and 30 already exist. I have been to the site and I assure Opposition Members that that is so. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) wishes to learn something for a change, he should listen.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose——

Mr. Bruinvels: I shall not give way.
Ginns and Gutteridge already has an excellent chapel of rest. People forget that this company, formed in 1840, is located on a regular site. The whole of the city of Leicester knows where it is — by the traffic lights. People stop there and know the premises belongs to Ginns and Gutteridge.
There is nothing new in funeral directors offering a crematorium facility. Ginns and Gutteridge genuinely believes that it will not cause smoke, offence to the 28 residents in the neighbouring area, or damage and disturbance to some of the other companies in the area.
Death is a serious, trying and disturbing time for everyone. It affects the whole city, and the people of

Leicester, West and those living up to 12 miles around the city should be offered an alternative crematorium to the one at Gilroes, which to date has been little used.
During the inquiry, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) served, various changes were offered in respect of the facilities at Gilroes crematorium. From having piped music, there was suddenly an organ, and from closing at 3 o'clock on a Friday, it was decided to stay open a bit longer. That is being done because Gilroes is worried about competition, but what is wrong with competition if the company is respectable?

Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: I am sorry, but I wish to get on.
It is alleged that a hoist will be used to bring up the coffins, but there is a six-passenger lift from the basement up to the relevant floor. Therefore, the allegation about having a hoist was wholly unwarranted.
Why is the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West so against this company? Has he visited it, discussed this matter or tried to assist? The fact that Leicester city council is Labour-controlled and that the hon. and learned Gentleman is a Labour Member has, I suppose, nothing to do with it.
Mention has already been made of the Bishop of Leicester, the Right Reverend Richard Rutt. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I find it incredible that the Bishop has only just found out that this Bill is before the House and that there is the possibility of another crematorium. That is amazing. I and other hon. Members have spoken about this on the radio, and articles have regularly appeared in the Leicester Mercury. The matter was debated on 14 February 1983, yet the Bishop has only just found out. That is strange — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It could be that he was not in the city as much as he ought to have been. We do not know.

Mr. Soames: rose——

Mr. Bruinvels: I shall not give way.
On 28 March the Bishop wrote to all hon. Members asking them to oppose the Bill. That was surprising because I thought that he would have done so last year, when he wrote expressing great concern. He wrote to me again on 3 April. It is incredible that he could not find out until 28 March that this site was being considered.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: As a member of the Committee, it was not my intention to intervene, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is perhaps necessary to make sure that right hon. and hon. Members are aware that, whereas on matters of doctrine one might well approach the bishop direct, on matters appertaining to the fabric of churches and grounds on which churches stand, particularly redundant churches, the method of approach would be to the archdeacon?

Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend. What he says is quite correct and I understand that there was an approach to Archdeacon Silk. However, as a member of a diocesan synod myself, I would have thought that there would have been regular meetings and that the bishop would have been told exactly what was going on and why it was necessary.
It is particularly interesting to me that so many hon. Members who have spoken in this debate did not take part in the debate in the House on 14 February 1983. It may


be that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West was unable to be here, but he is supposed to represent his constituents and I would have thought that he would have made quite sure that he came to the House for that debate.
Similarly, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who represents a constituency not very far from Leicester, might perhaps have wished to be in the Chamber on that day. Finally. the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)——

Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has only been in the House five minutes. I have already made it quite clear, and he listened——

Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether that is a point of order.

Mr. Rooker: The point of order is that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to impugn my integrity when I had already made it clear that it was only when my local crematorium wrote to me that I was aware of this matter. I said I was remiss in not being aware of it in February 1983.

Mr. Speaker: No hon. Member should impugn any other hon. Member's integrity. Mr. Peter Bruinvels.

Mr. Bruinvels: I have the impression that I did not impugn anyone's integrity.
The hon. Member for Blackburn also did not take part in that debate. The hon. Member for Perry Barr said that I have not been in the House very long, but it is 10 months to the day.
As we know, this debate took place during sittings of the Committee. I believe, having read the report— I really have read it—that virtually all the points that have been rehearsed by a number of hon. Members in the Chamber have been well and truly debated before. I understood that we were here to try to get a decision, not to filibuster or waste time.
I said earlier that death is not pleasant for anybody, and I sympathise with all the people in the city who feel that they would like an alternative to the Gilroes crematorium. Choice is offered by Ginns and Gutteridge—choice and service at any time. I think that is courageous because we do not know whether they will be successful, whether many people will use their facilities, but we do know that they have spent a tremendous amount of money trying to offer the citizens of Leicester that alternative.
There is one crematorium within 12 miles of the city centre and there are at least 300,000 potential users. No one has to use these particular facilities, but the ethnic minority, which plays quite a substantial role in the city of Leicester, would, I believe, welcome such an alternative. The Moslems would not, because they have their own facilities and tend to be buried rather than cremated, but the Hindus would welcome such a facility. This might seem unpleasant to some hon. Members, but in some cases Hindus wish to burn their dead themselves. Ginns and Gutteridge make this possible by allowing bereaved members of the family to go forward and press the button, and see their loved ones successfully cremated. That is something that is to be commended.
I have referred already to the tranquil surroundings. The site itself is tranquil, and there is adequate parking.
I must, in fairness, agree that hon. Members who have spoken about the garden of remembrance have a point. I have spoken to the Ginns family on the subject. They believed that All Saints churchyard would be offered to them, and they were in negotiation on the subject.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Bruinvels: No, I will not give way.
Ginns and Gutteridge had that belief throughout the hearings, and I do not believe that anybody has been blatantly dishonest. The fact that tonight we have heard — some of us knew it a few days ago — that an alternative site has been purchased shows that the argument adduced on that point is unfounded.

Mr. Janner: rose——

Mr. Bruinvels: I had hoped that tonight we would have a debate reflecting the time that has been given to this disturbing subject over many months. Instead, Opposition Members have made only historic points.
The local authority must be responsible for our debating the issue today. If it wants to revoke permission, it will have an opportunity to do so, but as it gave permission, it must bear responsibility for doing that. Indeed, I go further and say that if the Bill were to find its way onto the statute book, the city councillors in Leicestershire should be surcharged for wasting time. This has cost a lot of money to contest. Messrs. Ginns and Gutteridge is an honourable company and should be given a chance.

Mr. Janner: Nobody is disputing the honour of the family of Ginns and Gutteridge. As the hon. Gentleman spoke to them, may I ask him to say whether they told him that they had or had not approached the bishop or the diocese regarding the churchyard?

Mr. Bruinvels: They had, when I met them, approached the diocese and were in active negotiation throughout the period.

Mr. Janner: With the bishop?

Mr. Bruinvels: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) was in his place when my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) highlighted that point. Archdeacon Silk was taking part in the negotiations at the time about which I am speaking.
We are debating an important subject. I had hoped that the House would give this company the right to give the people of the city of Leicester the opportunity of an alternative facility. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Like other hon. Members, I did not intend to participate in this debate. However, having heard the comments of the hon. Members for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I thought it might be useful to make a short contribution, as one who took part in the Committee proceedings from day one.
I would have been more impressed with the case made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East had I seen him at more than one or two of the Committee's sittings.

Mr. Bruinvels: I attended three of the Committee's meetings, three more than some hon. Members in the Chamber tonight attended.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman's attendance at three out of a possible 20 sittings of the Committee suggests that he does not know much about the subject. Consider, for example, the question of car parking. Does he know that the proposals for car parking facilities altered twice during


the Committee's deliberations? Is he further aware that some of the information we were given was found to be incorrect?
The hon. Gentleman spoke of 30 parking spaces in or near the premises in Vaughan way. It would require a full-time attendant to guide cars in and out of the area. Indeed, people might have to make special insurance arrangements to cover them for the knocks that would undoubtedly occur if 30 cars had to park in that restricted area.
Does the hon. Gentleman also appreciate that the other car parking facility is almost as far away as the All Saints churchyard where it was originally intended that the ashes should be strewn? Does he also understand that it was only in Committee that we discovered that the land to be used was at All Saints church and now we learn that it is some other piece of land? As somebody who spent 25 sittings of the Committee considering that part of Leicester, I cannot think of any vacant piece of land that could be used other than All Saints churchyard. I should be interested to hear where that new piece of land is, because it was never referred to in Committee.
One thing that did become clear in Committee was that some of the exaggerated claims that were made by the manufacturers of the intended crematorium would never have come to light unless the Committee had done its job. I commend my hon. Friends on the Committee for their determination to get to the bottom of the matter. The Bill exposed the real flaws in the arguments that were presented. As an engineer, I was rather annoyed to discover that the expert witness whom Ginns and Gutteridge brought before the Committee had no experience of crematoria. He had never been in charge of a crematorium and had never as an engineer been involved in the design, planning or installation of a crematorium, yet he was the expert witness called before the Committee.

Mr. Cowans: As a member of the Committee perhaps my hon. Friend will examine what the Chairman of the Committee said. If I understand him correctly, he said that Ginns and Gutteridge's business was at stake. That was never said in Committee.

Mr. Ross: In fairness to the hon. Member for Faversham, I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood him. As far as I can recall, it is the second biggest undertaking business in Leicester and, with or without the crematorium, its business would not have been affected. The Gilroes crematorium has adequate facilities.
The Bill has highlighted a serious malpractice in crematoria. If it does nothing else, if it means the Leicester city council has had to improve the conditions of the Gilroes crematorium we should all be pleased. I hope that the House and every planning department looks at every crematorium. The hon. Member for Faversham was correct to say that a representative of the Federation of British Cremation Authorities admitted that the general practices in almost all crematoria need to be looked at and tightened. If that is all that the discussion tonight produces we shall have done the country a service.

Mr. John Farr: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 52.

Division No. 233]
[9.48 pm


AYES


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kilfedder, James A.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Burt, Alistair
Lang, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Cope, John
MacGregor, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Malins, Humfrey


Dunn, Robert
Malone, Gerald


Eggar, Tim
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Farr, John
Moate, Roger


Favell, Anthony
Murphy, Christopher


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Forth, Eric
Neubert, Michael


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Parris, Matthew


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Penhaligon, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Powley, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Raffan, Keith


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Spencer, Derek


Hayward, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Waddington, David


Hickmet, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Hind, Kenneth
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Hirst, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)



Hooson, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howard, Michael
Mr. Peter Bruinvels and Mr. David Ashby.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)





NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Barron, Kevin
McCrea, Rev William


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Maclennan, Robert


Bruce, Malcolm
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Marek, Dr John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Conlan, Bernard
Nellist, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Norris, Steven


Coombs, Simon
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Couchman, James
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Cowans, Harry
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Rooker, J. W.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Sims, Roger


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Dubs, Alfred
Speed, Keith


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Foulkes, George
Straw, Jack


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Tracey, Richard


Haynes, Frank
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Holt, Richard
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Hoyle, Douglas
Winnick, David


Janner, Hon Greville



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Mr. Ernie Ross and Mr. Tony Banks.


Lawrence, Ivan

Whereupon MR. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now considered.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: May I start by saying that, in every respect, there is no criticism in anything that may have been said in the House in the course of this evening's debate——

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Adjournment (Easter and Monday 7th May) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Adjournment (Easter and May Day)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Friday 13th April do adjourn till Wednesday 25th April, and at its rising on Friday 4th May do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 13th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

10 pm

Mr. David Winnick: There is concern over the continued erosion of civil liberties and I think that this is a matter that should be raised before we go into the Easter recess. We have of course, had, notification of the Bill which is to be debated next Wednesday for the abolition of elections for the metropolitan county councils. Perhaps the Leader of the House will explain to us why the Committee stage of that Bill cannot be taken on the Floor of the House.
There have been other matters too, such as the ban on trade unions at GCHQ and, more recently—no doubt this will be raised by other hon. Members—the way in which the police are stopping miners from travelling from one part of the country to another. That is a very important matter which should be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
I also await an answer from the Home Secretary about the matters raised last week under Standing Order No. 10, about miners who were arrested and asked pointed questions, such as how they had voted at the last general election and how they voted in internal elections of the National Union of Mineworkers. In answer to a question of mine on Tuesday, the Minister said that he was awaiting a report from the chief constable of Nottinghamshire. We shall have to see the reply to those questions.
The matter that I particularly want to raise this evening, which certainly concerns civil liberties, is section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. As I understand it, I am not allowed to raise a particular case because that case has yet to go before the courts again. I will not attempt to do so. It should be said, however, that much concern has already been expressed about this case and, when the appeal has been dealt with, I trust that the Attorney-General will make a statement to the House on how that case was handled from the start.
Before the House rises for the Easter recess and agrees to the motion which is before us, we should have some opportunity of a debate or at least a statement next week on the implications of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. The attitude now adopted by the Government to section 2 is quite different from that which was taken when Ministers were in opposition.
In June 1978, a year before the Conservative party won the election, there was a debate on the Official Secrets Act, which hon. Members will probably recall. It is interesting to note that the debate was held in Opposition time. It was opened by the present Attorney-General, who was then shadow Attorney-General and legal adviser to the Shadow Cabinet. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who initiated the debate was very critical indeed of section 2.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, referring to the 1911 Act:
Clearly, there was no real understanding in the House of the enormous scope covered by section 2.

He talked about the measure passing through the House one Friday afternoon in 1911 and said that the Conservative Opposition accepted that
Section 2 of the Act is outdated and far too widely drawn.
He urged that a new official information Act should take its place and argued that the criminal law should be used
only to prevent information the disclosure of which would really be against the public interest.
He promised that new legislation would be introduced once his party formed an Administration.
Another contributor to the debate was the present Home Secretary. He said:
The damage that a law of this kind creates"—
that is, section 2—
cannot be gauged by the number of prosecutions that are brought …the law as it stands faces the press with an ever-present implied threat and helps to perpetuate the all-pervading atmosphere of secrecy that has for far too long pervaded British government.
In other words, that section of the Act is simply indefensible, yet it is still there. Why is that?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman answered his own question by saying that the Government—the then Labour Government—
have not had the courage to fight and overcome the strenuous rearguard action mounted in … Whitehall.
It would be good if the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the present Home Secretary, were to repeat the words which he used when he concluded his speech from the Opposition Benches in 1978. He said:
For us, the best protection of the citizen is a free Press and a free parliament. As it stands, the Official Secrets Act is an obstacle to both and should be repealed."— [Official Report, 15 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1257–1275.]
When the matter has been raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Prime Minister has stated that the Government have no intention—this is how I understand it—of doing anything about section 2. All the right hon. and hon. Members from the Conservative Benches who spoke in the 1978 debate were of the same vein and the same persuasion as the present Attorney-General and the present Home Secretary.
We are all aware of the catch-all provisions of section 2. No piece of official information, classified or not, can be disclosed to any unauthorised person. The section is convenient for Ministers, as they can decide who should do the leaking to the press. There has been no lack of leaks under this Government; Ministers leak frequently. I suppose that it can be argued that leaking takes place under every Government, but there seem to have been more leaks from Ministers in this Administration than from many previous ones. However, someone has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for doing what Ministers do all the time by passing on information to the press. We have what can only be described as a form of Government news management. Ministers decide from the Prime Minister downwards what should be leaked to the press and what should not.
Until this year it was the custom to learn most about the Budget from the Sunday newspapers before the Chancellor delivered his Budget statement. No one received six months' imprisonment for leaking that information. We recognise, as the Conservative party did when it was in Opposition, that section 2 is, to use the word of the present Home Secretary, "indefensible". Section 2 should go and we should have a freedom of information Act.
The case which I am not allowed to go into because it is sub judice provides the background to the present controversy over section 2. Perhaps the case has served


one useful purpose. It has undoubtedly ensured that the controversy over section 2 will start all over again. Before that case, not much concern was expressed in the House even from the Opposition Benches. Now it has become very much a matter of public controversy and there is pressure for section 2 to be repealed because it is an infringement of individual liberties and of many people's rights. I suppose it can be argued that the case I am referring to has served that purpose.
The Leader of the House should bear in mind what was said in the debate in June 1978 by his colleagues who were then on the Opposition Benches. He should recognise that there is mounting concern outside the House that there should be a change in the law. It is indefensible that section 2 should remain in force, although it seems that the Government wish the Act to stay as it is. I hope that, before the House rises for the Easter recess, there will be a statement by the Attorney-General or by the Home Secretary on what action is to be taken on section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. Once Sarah Tisdall's case is no longer sub judice, I hope that the way in which it was dealt with will be the basis of a statement by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Christopher Murphy: Before the House rises for the Easter recess it should consider the role of the Government in relation to legislation on moral issues, especially those affecting young people. Often the initiative for matters of such great concern to our citizens is left for private Members' Bills, as with the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, with which I was closely associated in the last Parliament. The same approach appears to be continuing, as is evidenced by the Video Recordings Bill which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright), and of which I am proud to be a sponsor.
That Bill is intended to safeguard the public against being unwillingly exposed to video cassettes of a violent or horrific nature, often portraying scenes of sexual sadism. It is a recognition that it is wrong to inflict these matters on anyone who may find them offensive. The current legislation on indecent displays has particular implications for young people, who can express full judgment only with maturity. It is a further recognition that support for parents, as they, too, seek to protect their children, is a matter which should be of prime importance to the House. But people in the United Kingdom understandably look to the Government to give a lead in such matters. The vast majority expect there to be a moral dimension to the ordering of the affairs of state.
Admittedly, certain views have been expressed in some minority quarters about interference with freedom and about the implications of introducing censorship, the latter hardly without precedent in this country. Indeed, for many years the signature of my namesake, Mr. Stephen Murphy, was seen to flit across cinema screens throughout the land before every film was shown, providing an authoratitive guide to its content via the certificate.
I have long made clear my adherence to the concept of freedom, in particular that of the individual. Once again it should be emphasised that there is freedom from as well as freedom to, and the word "responsibility" can never be divorced from freedom, thus giving a basis for Government action.
I have also long advocated a recognition of the concept of common sense. The vast majority of the people whom we seek to represent will know full well what they believe constitutes a so-called video nasty, an indecent display or whatever. It is an assessment that must be given full backing in Government action.
Although private Members' Bills have had certain marked successes in tackling moral issues, I urge the Government, before the Easter recess, to start to deal with certain outstanding problems without further delay. Two more very evident and serious ones exist, those of underage sexual relations and glue sniffing, which I and many hon. Members have brought to the attention of the House on previous occasions, and regretfully there are many others such as pornography and drug abuse that need firmer measures. Again, I and many hon. Members have raised these issues in the past.
The House should have at its heart, and as its watchword, protection — especially protection of children from unnecessary and potentially harmful violence, obscenity and the like. To provide that protection, which is so evidently needed from many rapidly-growing and increasingly widespread evils, the country should be able to look to the Government for a direct response. The House should emphatically give its support to such actions on behalf of our constituents. who will overwhelmingly endorse such moral fortitude.

Mr. James Molyneaux: As we contemplate the House adjourning for the Easter recess, it is appropriate to remind ourselves and the electorate that Ministers and their staffs and, for that matter, Members of Parliament, are not going on holiday. For the Northern Ireland Office, Easter marks the beginning of a period of stocktaking and planning for its year, which begins about mid-June. That is when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to Parliament to seek authority to govern Northern Ireland for yet another year, and to suggest how he can improve on the methods of governing in the preceding twelve months.
I fear that this year the Northern Ireland Office is in real danger of running out of steam, because for some months it has been what one can only call obsessed with the body known as the Dublin Forum. It has been hypnotised to the extent that its members, staffing a Department of her Majesty's Government, are incapable of maintaining the degree of momentum or forward thinking that is essential for the functioning of any Department of State.
What can be the Department's justification for freezing in its tracks? Surely the staff know from experience that nothing useful can be expected from an external body based in a foreign independent state. I am glad to recognise it as such because that is its claim, and all honour to it. However, nothing by way of suggestions for the better internal government of the United Kingdom can come from a body that has declared as its aim the dismembering of the United Kingdom.
Does the Northern Ireland Office not realise that its political paralysis makes it even more vulnerable to those who allege that Northern Ireland is a failed entity? We have suffered enough from the Secretary of State's misguided assertion that he can make no improvement in the mechanism of governing Northern Ireland unless there is widespread support for each and every move. It is worth


considering how much less effective the Leader of the House could be in his management of our business affairs if he subscribed to such a doctrine in this place.
Is it seriously imagined that, by waiting for pronouncements from foreign parts, widespread support or acceptance is more likely to be obtained? Far from it—it is far more likely that the Nationalist minority in Ulster will simply be used as latter-day Sudeten Germans and become pawns of power-hungry southern politicians. While this farce is being played out, the murder campaign is being permitted and even encouraged to continue. Necessary measures are refused in the belief that some cobbled-together solution will end the violence. I have often demonstrated that no fanciful institution or structure will stop the slaughter.
In case the House questions my judgment or objectivity, I call in aid an Irish Republic police officer who is reported in The Irish Times of 4 April 1984 as telling a conference of Garda officers the plain truth. He said:
'Those who claim that a political solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will bring an end to violence on this island are living in a dreamland. Such a solution, if it brings about a united Ireland, will not stop the violence — it will simply displace it. The IRA and the INLA will direct their full attention to the destruction of our fledgling democracy — a project which they have already begun.
'These men have one cause and one cause only — to establish their own dictatorship on this island. It is with this in mind that we should be planning our strategy for their defeat. We need to look at our security strategy as a long-term one rather than as a temporary or emergency measure.
Political parties in Dublin know very well the truth of that statement. They know that, even if the Government and Parliament were to deprive the Ulster people of their right of self-determination — the right to withhold consent to Irish unity—the IRA and its allies would promptly widen the scope of their campaign of murder. For political ends, Dublin politicians will not publicly admit that truth. In the words of that Garda representative, there is a grim warning, but there is also a clear signal which the Government would do well to heed. The Government would do particularly well to heed his words:
It is with this in mind that we should be planning our strategy for their defeat.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has said in the House that he is in no doubt about what that strategy should be—a clear recognition that there will not be a united Ireland in the foreseeable future. Once that is clearly understood, the foundations will have been laid for a period of stability, which will deprive terrorists of their feeding ground.
The second prong of our strategy must be to improve the quality of government in Northern Ireland through many of the ways open to this Government. Parliament, to which Northern Ireland Ministers are answerable, has a duty to advise them to stop looking over their shoulders and to get on with the task of governing my part of the United Kingdom.
I have never believed that this House would deprive of their rights those who are represented here. On the eve of Easter, I want the Government to give a reassurance that there will be no question of the Government plunging into yet another ill-fated initiative of the type they had resolved five years ago to desist from. I seek a reasonable assurance

that the Government will hold to that cause through all the razzamatazz and the deluge of propaganda in the coming weeks.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I draw to the attention of the House a matter that should be discussed before the recess. It came to my attention within the past 48 hours, by the courtesy, I suspect, of a member of the GLC staff. Two days ago, I received in the post copies of internal staff notices that had been prepared by the director of the GLC mechanical and electrical engineering division, Mr. D. J. Payne. The particular document that interests me was headed "Anti-Abolition" which was apparently sent out on 16 March to members of that department. In brief, the document refers to a letter sent out by the director-general of the GLC to all staff employees asking them to collect signatures against the introduction of the GLC paving Bill into the House. I believe that that letter from the director-general using, as it does, GLC paper and taking up GLC staff time is bad enough, but Mr. Payne, plainly taking his cue from the director-general, in his departmental notice goes rather further. It starts by referring to the director-general's letter and states:
The main purpose of this note is therefore to encourage staff to support the petition"—
that is, the Bill petition—
by obtaining signatures and by offering your services in any other way possible either"—
these are the key words—
during normal working hours or in the evenings or at weekends. So far as working days are concerned, line managers will give sympathetic consideration to the release of their staff from normal duties and, indeed, I hope that line managers will themselves be amongst the volunteers.
Such a note to paid public servants is unacceptable, for three reasons. First, it has long been accepted that Government employees should perform a completely nonpolitical role at work, and it is considered right that they should be subject to strict rules about their political involvement outside working hours.
The notice instructs GLC employees to take part in politics at work, paid for by London ratepayers. That is unacceptable. Secondly, the note is unacceptable because it offends against an important tradition of public life—that the use of public funds should and can be accounted for.
In this note employees are urged to take paid time to collect signatures. There is no maximum amount of time laid down under the terms of the note. In other words, if an employee wanted to take three weeks off to collect signatures there is nothing in the note to restrict it, nor is there any requirement to account for the way in which the time off has been spent. There is no need even to produce a number of signatures which have been collected during working hours. The note is unacceptable on the grounds of public accountability.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has just said that the note refers to paid time off? Or does it refer to paid leave? There is a big difference between the two.
I had been given notice that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise this matter, and I took the opportunity to find out more about it. As I understand it—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong—is not the purpose of the note to prevent staff from believing that they can take paid


time off; and that, if they were going to take any time off, it should be within their paid leave entitlement? There is a distinction.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is ingenious and doubtless well-briefed by the many political hacks who work for him in the GLC. That is not what the note says. Let me read it again, since he clearly was not paying attention. It says:
The main purpose of this note is therefore to encourage staff to support the petition by obtaining signatures and by offering your services in any other way possible, either during normal working hours or in the evenings or at weekends. So far as working days are concerned, line managers will give sympathetic consideration to the release of their staff from normal duties".
It is clear that paid time off is being contemplated.
The hon. Gentleman has been tipped off, presumably as a result of a telephone inquiry made by the press this afternoon direct to the GLC press department. It is my understanding that the powers that be at the GLC and its press department are appalled by the fact that this document has been leaked and made available not just to me but to other Members of Parliament, because the GLC realises the damage that this type of thing can do.
I can only hope that Mr. Payne did not realise the implications of his action and that neither the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) nor any other Labour Member or member of the Labour GLC administration has given any instructions of that kind. I hope, too, that Maurice Stonefrost, the director-general, for whom I have great personal respect, was unaware of the note until it was brought to his attention by the press department today. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has done himself and his party no service by raising the point that he did.
The third reason why I believe that the note is so insidious is that there is the implication that a member of staff of that department will be judged by the way in which he reacts to the director's request to collect signatures both in his own time at weekends and during paid working hours. How will a member of staff feel who looks to the director and line management for future promotion and job opportunities when he knows that the amount of time that he spends collecting signatures will be known by them? In other words, there is pressure on individual members of staff who may be apolitical, Conservative or whatever, to go out and collect signatures on what is undoubtedly a political matter. That is extraordinarily worrying and a clear continuation of the politicisation of staff at county hall.
Lest it be thought that Mr. Payne suffered a temporary aberration on 16 March, I shall refer to just one of the many other documents that I have from that department. Departmental circular 30/83, circulated in December, refers to a campaign newsletter made available to all council employees. The newsletter encouraged staff members to write to their local newspapers. Mr. Payne then refers to a staff code which apparently makes it clear that no county hall employee may take part in activities such as writing to newspapers. He advises staff members in his department to disregard that staff code provision. He states:
I wish to make it clear that staff are permitted to write to the papers in support of the campaign against GLC abolition"—
those words are underlined—
but the Staff Code requirement remains in force so far as any other matters are concerned.

The message is clear. A member of the GLC staff is allowed to write to local newspapers opposing the abolition of the GLC but not in favour of abolition because the director has not lifted the constraints of the staff code in any other respect.
Whatever one's political view of the rights or wrongs of abolition, instructions of that kind to public servants are utterly unacceptable and should be condemned as much by Labour Members as by Conservative Members. I very much hope that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House winds up the debate he will say what the Government intend to do about this gross breach of normal standards by the GLC director concerned and what action the Government believe can be taken.

Mr. Alan Williams: I wish to return to an issue which I raised with the Leader of the House during our debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time I spent a considerable time trying, as unemotionally as possible, to explain the sequence of events that led the Opposition to feel—we still do, and even more so—that it is imperative that the Prime Minister should make a statement on the events surrounding the Oman contract and the alleged possible conflict of interest involved.
I do not want to go through the detail of events, but I wish to remind the House of the injunction that Winston Churchill, as Prime Minister, laid on his Ministers, and which has been the guiding set of rules for the conduct of Ministers ever since. The right hon. Lady has said that she is happy with that set of rules, and feels that they do not need revising.
In the opening paragraph of his explanation of the notes, Winston Churchill said:
It is a principle of public life that Ministers must so order their affairs that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their private interests and their public duties". —[Official Report, 25 February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 702.]
He said that not only should it not arise but that it should not even appear to arise. On that basis alone, the events up to the present day require the statement for which I am asking.
The allegation is that if the Prime Minister was aware of her son's interest in the Oman contract at the time when she was in Oman negotiating with the Oman Administration, she allowed such a conflict of interest to arise. If she was unaware, all she had to do—and all she has to do now—was to say so.
During Prime Minister's Question Time today, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked the Prime Minister to state categorically — "Yes" or "No"—whether she knew of her son's interest while she was in Oman. Instead of answering "Yes" or "No", as over the last three months, all we got was a flood of evasive words.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a major development took place in the House today? If we look closely at the right hon. Lady's answer, we see that she was effectively blocking the possibility of answering any more questions about aspects of that contract. It was a deliberate ploy to prevent this House from exercising its rights to question her.
When over the coming weeks my hon. Friends go to the Table Office to table their questions, they will hear repeated reference to the answer given today to my hon.
Friend the Member for Fife, Central. It was a deliberate blocking answer which was read by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, and it is a disgrace.

Mr. Williams: In fact, it is not the only such episode, and this is why concern has mounted on this side of the House. We had a similar performance with a blocking answer given in a recent Sunday Times article, and I drew attention to that in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate.
On 1 April, in The Mail on Sunday—carefully selected, I assume, because it could be relied on to write the story as required—three pages were devoted to this episode. There was an interview with Mark Thatcher, on the front page and the two centre pages. In the course of this interview, it was said, in relation to the contract:
Beneath the surface there were hints that his mother was aware of this"——
that is, of his interest——
all along. About this he is angriest of all. Nothing can blot out his rage.
Now, if Mark Thatcher felt—as perhaps he does—the anger which was mentioned in that article, one would expect that in the 56 paragraphs that make up the front page and the two centre pages of The Mail on Sunday he would have taken the chance and have vented his anger —which he has every right to do—to deny categorically that his mother was aware of his interest. In fact, one can read all three pages, and nowhere, at any stage, does he make the denial that would end the whole story. Just as the Prime Minister has evaded and dodged and flatly refused to answer the basic, simple question, so did he.
On the allegation that made him angriest of all we had a smokescreen, we had indignation, we had wrath, but we had no denial. And, as I have said, we had no denial from the Prime Minister at Question Time today.
Yet, in the next paragraph of the interview, Mark Thatcher said:
It has been 12 weeks … Twelve bloody weeks.
He could have ended that speculation. He had the opportunity there, three pages of opportunity. His mother could have ended the speculation 12 weeks ago and avoided all the anguish and all the worry. It really seems strange that, in this exclusive interview, triggered, it seemed, by his sense of anger and outrage, he overlooked the need to deny the basic charge that is laid against him and his mother in relation to that particular contract.
If the 12 weeks have been as bloody for Mark Thatcher as he says, perhaps his mother owed it to him to give today at the Dispatch Box the categorical answer for which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asked. She, again, only has to say that she was utterly unaware of his involvement and the issue would be dead as far as we are concerned — and it would probably make life a lot easier for her son as well.
In the Hong Kong Standard dated 17 March there was a series of articles relating to Mark Thatcher's business interests in which there was a quotation from an interview with him in the Ming Pao Weekly—obviously a very widely read journal—in December 1983. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to these words:
Mrs. Thatcher's son said his relation with his mother was very close and whatever he did his mother would always give him full support.
And this is the critical part:

Virtually everything, including his commercial ventures, would be discussed between mother and son, according to the article.
So we understand, on the basis of this interview, that the probability is that there was an awareness on the part of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister still refuses to answer straight questions from us. We cannot be blamed if, having asked perfectly straightforward questions to which we get non-answers, evasive answers or blocking answers, we conclude that the right hon. Lady has something to conceal. Failure to speak clashes with that basic injunction in the Churchill guidelines that it is a principle of public life that no conflict appears to arise. The evasion is making the appearance stronger in our minds and in the public mind, and the longer she refuses to rebut the allegation that she was aware of his involvement, the greater the suspicion will be.
This House has been put into an unprecedented quandary because, unlike the situation of the generality of Ministers, under the Churchill guidelines the Prime Minister is the final arbiter as to what is and is not within those guidelines, which say:
in any case of doubt the Prime Minister of the day must be the final judge, and Ministers should submit any such case to him for his direction".—[Official Report, 25 February 1952; Vol. 496, c. 702.]
But no provision exists for the situation where the Prime Minister is the Minister against whom the allegation of a clash of interests is being made. There is no provision for anyone other than the Prime Minister to be judge in her own case. No provision exists for us or for anyone else adequately to probe what really happened.
If the right hon. Lady refuses to answer the simple question, "Did she know?", may we be told by the Leader of the House where we, the elected representatives of the people, go next? How do we deal with the situation? There is no procedure for dealing with it while the Prime Minister chooses to stand at the Dispatch Box and say in answer to written questions, "I have nothing further to add" when, clearly, there is something important further to add. It is yes or no—as simple as that—one or the other; either she was or she was not aware.
Because of the stubborn blocking by the Prime Minister, we must now consider whether the rules on ministerial conduct should be revised, for she has highlighted, and continues to highlight, a great flaw in the structure of the rules. Parliament has a duty to face this issue. A special committee of the House should be established to look into the relevance of, and the need to up-date, the rules on the conduct of Ministers, a committee with the ability to call specialist constitutional experts to ensure that we can up-date the rules and so make sure that no Minister, and no Prime Minister, can place himself or herself above the rules.
We are constantly lectured by the Prime Minister about other people having to obey rules. It seems that rules exist for everybody except the Prime Minister. It is bad for politics and for the institution of Parliament if niggling doubts are allowed to linger. It is no good the Government and the Conservative press attacking Opposition Members for asking what it is their right and duty to ask. It is certainly not the duty of the Opposition to enter into a conspiracy to pretend that there is no issue and no problem. We will not pretend that a problem does not exist, and Conservative Members will not be able much longer to pretend that a problem does not exist.
The question that we are asking is not unreasonable. It is justified under Churchill's criteria. I repeat: Did the Prime Minister know about her son's involvement in the potential Oman contract when she was in Oman, as all evidence, all logic, suggests that she probably did? She owes it to him, to herself, to Parliament and to the integrity of the rules governing the conduct of Ministers to say whether she did or did not know. She cannot continue arrogantly to brush aside this critical issue. The more she prevaricates, the more she dodges, the more she fuels suspicion and the more she damages the image of public life. For that reason, we want and expect to have a statement from the Prime Minister before the House goes into recess.

Mr. David Atkinson: If I may move to a more topical burning issue, I was hoping that before the House adjourned for the Easter recess we would know the fate of the Elgin marbles. It is some five months since the Greek Government's request for their return was received. We all know what the reply would have been in the unlikely event of the Leader of the Opposition being Prime Minister. He said—not here but in Athens, after what The Times described as a prolonged taverna dinner —that a British Labour Government would give them back. Whether that was in pursuit of cultural unity or to further the cause of international Socialism he did not make plain at the time. I suspect that his attitude would have been completely different had the request come from a Greek military Government.
It is certainly in complete contrast to the reply given by a predecessor of his, the then Harold Wilson, when, as Prime Minister in 1965 he told the House that he did not propose to introduce legislation to require the trustees of the British Museum to return the marbles, thus repeating the view of a predecessor of his, Clement Attlee, who told the House the very same thing in 1941, and, apparently, a predecessor of his, Ramsay Macdonald when approached by Harold Nicholson on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Lord Byron in 1924. That is one, and only one, consistency with past Labour leaders which I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to repeat in his reply tonight.
Although the current debate should not, in my view, be concerned with how the Parthenon marbles came to be in the British Museum, inevitably it is. It would be right to remind ourselves that but for Lord Elgin there would be no Parthenon marbles today. He saved them from an uncertain fate at the hands of stone robbers, lime burners, curio hunters, religious iconoclasts, and, more recently, Athens smog. He acquired them legally. He paid for them and exported them with the full consent of the legal Ottoman Government. Contrary to what the Greek Ministry of Culture and Education would have us believe in a recent leaflet published in the name of its committee for the return of the Acropolis marbles, none of them was lost at sea during the shipment to Britain.
As the House will recall, in 1816, following a Select Committee report, the House of Commons voted by 82 to 30 to purchase the marbles from Lord Elgin for the sum of £35,000, which is half the price that he paid for them and they have been carefully preserved in the British Museum ever since, inspiring the reintroduction of classical architecture to Victorian Britain, playing an international role in the understanding and appreciation of

antiquity, and revolutionising the fine and decorative arts in an unparalleled way, all of which the Greek Government would do well to acknowledge in their request for their return.
There is nothing here of which we as a nation should feel guilty in any way. There appear to be certain misunderstandings about the exact nature of the request from the Greek Government. At the UNESCO world conference on cultural policies in Mexico in 1982. which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) when he was the Minister for the Arts, the recommendation submitted by Greece which was adopted by the conference said:
Considering that the removal of the so-called Elgin marbles from their place in the Parthenon had disfigured a unique monument which is a symbol of eternal significance for the Greek people and for the whole world, considering it right and just that those marbles should be returned to Greece, the country in which they were created, for reincorporation in the architectural structure of which they formed part, recommends that Member States view the return of the parthenon marbles as an instance of application of the principle that elements abstracted from national monuments should be returned to those monuments".
The understanding from that resolution is surely that the marbles would be re-integrated into the parthenon, in situ. Miss Melina Mercouri herself confirmed:
it is now time for the Acropolis Marbles to return to their natural environment under the blue sky of Attica".
That is not what the Greek Government have in mind. These important sculptures would be transferred from one of the pre-eminent museums of the world — an internationally acknowledged source of knowledge and inspiration which is open seven days a week, free of charge, and attracts more than 3 million visitors a year —to a museum which has yet to be built, in a country where tour operators complain that the opening of museums and historical sites is becoming more and more unpredictable and where many tourists are disappointed by not being able to see the relics that they travel there to see.
Moreover, to accede to that request would set a precedent that was wholly unacceptable. There might be demands for the Mona Lisa to be returned to Italy, the impressionists to France, the Venus de Milo and the winged victory to Greece, the bronze horses of St. Mark's to Turkey or perhaps Greece, and the Rosetta stone and perhaps Queen Nefertiti to Egypt. Whole museums might be emptied of their most valued exhibits and we would see an end to the unity of European culture.
The request is unacceptable for that reason alone, but it is also not credible. Why do the Greek Government not seek the return of all the other Parthenon marbles from the nine museums in six countries between which they are divided — France, Germany, Denmark, Vatican City, Italy and Austria — as well as those in the British Museum?
There is the strongest possible case for Europe's cultural heritage remaining where all Europeans have easy access to it, and for the great international collections such as that in the British Museum remaining where they are. That view was supported by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as recently as last October.
We should not be wholly negative in our reply to the Greek Government. Our response to the present ambitious and comprehensive 15-year programme to conserve and restore the principal monuments on the Acropolis has been nothing but helpful. When I went to the British Museum yesterday I learned that it has supplied a number of plaster


and fibre-glass casts of sculptures, including one of the caryatids from the Erechtheion, to replace originals which are now in the Athens museum.
After the rhetoric has died down, there is no reason why the Greeks should not apply their own precedents and replace the Elgin marbles with replicas, taken from the originals, which should remain in the British Museum. That is a civilised solution which Pericles himself would have approved.

Mr. Ray Powell: I am sometimes disturbed when I listen to Conservative Members, who are more worried about marbles than the rights and freedoms of their constituents. I am not exaggerating when I say that there is a need for the House to abandon any idea of an Easter recess as the fabric of society as we know it is being torn apart. Right hon. and hon. Members should stop and ponder on the disruption that is occurring throughout the country.
For the past three weeks the majority of miners have been on strike to keep their industry and to protect their jobs and the right to work. What more loyal British subjects can there be than the British miner, whether in peace or war? On 1 September last year, only seven months ago, tragedy struck the industry when Ian MacGregor was appointed the chairman of the National Coal Board, with the approval of No. 10. Some of us experienced his massive butchery in the steel industry, from which he threw thousands of people out of work. We spelt out the dangers when he was appointed. We forecast what would happen. The Prime Minister was well aware of what would happen in the mining industry as a result of his appointment. I must admit that I thought that it would take much longer than seven months to create the present conflict. He must have been spurred on by the grocer's daughter and the size of the police force, as the police complement his and the Government's attitude to the miners, especially because they caused the Conservatives' defeat in 1974.
We should consider what has happened in the five years of Conservative rule to miners, steel workers, local government workers, railwaymen, shop workers, civil servants—the list is endless. Only then do we realise how tolerant, passive and mediocre the Trades Union Congress has been with this brutal and blatant bludgeoning of its reasonable and lawful protection. It is time that it made a stand to protect what little is left. I warn that the bastions of the trade union movement are under the severest attack from the most ruthless 72-year-old American Scot that ever God put breath into, if indeed it was God who put breath into him. He accuses Arthur Scargill of engineering a political strike.
Last night Mr. MacGregor attended a meeting of the Welsh parliamentary group. I asked whether he thought his was a political appointment, and he refused to reply. We all know that his transfer from the British Steel Corporation to the NCB was a blatantly political act by this mistress of Machiavellian political chicanery. He has written an article in The Standard tonight in an attempt to defend his seven months of management. The article refers to conflict and deception. I recommend it to the House.
By what blatant hypocrisy does Mr. MacGregor conclude that the out-of-work steel workers—there are

thousands all over the country because of him—do not remember what happened to their industry? Is it any wonder that the spokesman for the steel union cringes at the signs of conflict when, under the MacGregor axe, he watched his union crumble to insignificance? All of that has happened because of MacGregor, and if, as he told us last night, his remit from No. 10 is to make the coal industry profitable, to provide cheaper coal for industry, why is it that 122 pits are not producing an ounce of coal and have not been producing an ounce of coal for the past three weeks?
Why is it that there is total conflict in the industry? Is this carrying out the remit that Mr. MacGregor was given from 10 Downing Street? Is this carrying out a remit which has cost the taxpayer £1·5 million by way of compensation to Mr. MacGregor's company for the loss of his services? Or was his remit really to smash the miners, to smash the National Union of Mineworkers, to smash Scargill, as he had smashed Bill Sirs? That would be nearer the truth than that which he has led us to believe, because there is nothing to substantiate the idea of any initiative by the Government to cut industry's energy charges. Indeed, the Government have deliberately increased industry's energy costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) opened the debate by highlighting the frightening policing in parts of this country and the erosion of freedom. I intend to make a few further points on this. This morning, at the invitation of the president and vice-president of the miners of south Wales, I travelled to Margam to witness the conflict there between police and pickets. I saw action taken by the police which one would expect to see only in a country under a dictatorship, where freedom and democracy had been removed years before. I saw young lads handled like cattle to be slaughtered. I saw 30 arrests made, some selected at random for no just or reasonable cause. I shall not go into the details, because most of those arrested are still subject to further police and court action.
However, I can assure the House that the actions of the police were in no way similar to those that I have witnessed or experienced at any other picket line. I wonder what instructions were given by the Home Secretary when he recently met chief constables. I have been told, not once, but many times, that people travelling to work to go about their normal business have been stopped and ordered out of their cars for no apparent reason other than that the police have decided to stop and question them.
We were told only yesterday of the attitude of the police to the peace-loving women of Greenham common. This country is rapidly becoming a police state, where the miner, the railway worker, the shopworker and the civil servant, together with all other trade unionists, will have no rights left, where the housewife and the citizen will have no freedom and where the police will be feared rather than respected.
I ask the House, therefore, in the name of justice, democracy and individual freedom to resolve these matters before we adjourn for any recess.

Mr. Greg Knight: Different issues at this time concern different Members of the House to different degrees. I accept that the hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are concerned about the question of police powers. My hon.


Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), and, apparently, the Leader of the Opposition, are concerned about the loss of certain marbles.
A matter which causes me some concern, however, is much nearer home and affects the lives of those whom I am honoured to represent in this place. Derby, as I am sure the House knows, is one of Britain's principal railway cities and we are set, we are told, to get a new railway station — that is, unless current plans are changed. British Rail apparently intends to demolish the existing station at Derby and to construct a new building at a cost of some £3·5 million. The new station, we are told, will be a showpiece for the city of Derby.
Those of us who have seen an artist's impression of what the new station will look like are more of the opinion that it is going to look like a supermarket, totally out of place in, and unworthy of, its setting in the middle of a conservation area. In Derby a strong and worthy campaign has been waged to save the present station, with its imposing facade over 1,000 ft long, designed by Charles Trubshaw and completed in 1892, although parts of the station go back to an earlier date.
The cost of repair and rehabilitation of the station—it is accepted that it needs some repair—would cost much less than the estimated replacement cost of £3·5 million. Those who support the retention of the existing station are not a handful of crank objectors but number the "Country Life" magazine. I shall quote briefly from an article which appeared in the edition of 18 September 1983 which was written by Marcus Binney and entitled "Crunch Time at Derby." The article states:
There are good reasons to be angry about Derby Station. Angry, first, with British Rail for determining to press ahead with demolition and rebuilding even though no detailed study has been made of the cost and practicality of repairing the existing station, … though more recently the highly successful Derbyshire Historic Buildings Trust has offered to take on and refurbish all surplus parts of the station and find tenants for them. Angry, secondly, with the Department of the environment for steadfastly refusing to list the station which still vividly reflects the growth and work of one of the great Victorian railway companies. Angry, thirdly, with Derby City Council for granting permission to demolish the focal point of the Railway Conservation Area it designated in March, 1980.
I agree with every word of that article.
An objection has been raised also by the Derby Civic Society. In September 1983 a representative of the society, Peter Billson said:
Our Society have had a long fight for this significant area in the City, from way back in early 1978. Through our endeavours we succeeded in effecting the retention and rehabilitation of the Railway Houses and the Brunswick Inn rehabilitation … the creation of the Railway Conservation Area, the Listing of the Railway Houses and the Midland Hotel. We are convinced that the Station building should be rehabilitatied and conserved as a vital and central element of this Conservation Area.
Thirdly, a renowned and respected architect who has knowledge of this issue commented in 1982:
The station building is possibly a more complex problem. My view is that although it is an amalgam of building over a 50 year period last century, nevertheless that does not invalidate an argument for retention and rehabilitation. Derby desperately needs an improved station; but demolition and replacement is not the only answer. Quite apart from historical grounds and the strong contribution to the street scene by the existing building; there is also a very good argument that alterations and rehabilitation would be more economical. British Rail ought to have looked at this but their architects conceded to me that they had never had a brief to do so, only to produce a new station.
I agree also with every word of that commentary.
Sadly, British Rail's narrowmindedness appears to have found a companion in the judgment, which I regard as a judgment of error, of the Department of the Environment. In November 1983 in a letter to me it was stated:
My Department has considered a number of requests to spot list the station since British Rail's proposals for it were first mooted. As … the Derby Civic Society has already been told a special inspection of the area was carried out by my Department's professional Inspectorate of Historic Buildings in June, 1980. Their conclusion then, which was endorsed by Ministers, was that the station did not merit listing.
The Derby Evening Telegraph, which often has its finger on the hub of an issue, commented on 16 August:
It is a pity then that British Rail planners cannot see how a rejuvenated station along similar lines to the railway cottages would be of great benefit to us all rather than the modern monolith they are proposing.
Many of us in Derby sympathise and agree with that comment. I accept that Derby's history did not begin with the coming of the railway, but during the 19th century Derby became a far more important industrial centre because of the presence of the Midland railway companies. By 1801 its population was in excess of 11,000. Within the following 40 years it had trebled. Derby was the sort of town that attracted the early railway pioneers.
At one stage prior to 1844 Derby was served by three separate railway companies. It could easily have ended up with three stations, as some cities did, but that was not the case. The Midland Railway, one of the first great railway companies, was formed in 1844 by an amalgamation of the three railway companies. The amalgamation was a wise move which produced a network of 180 miles of track. Derby itself was served by this one station. The station, designed by Charles Trubshaw, expresses the confidence in and affluence of the Midland Railway. It is an irreplaceable monument in a city if not virtually created by railways then certainly buoyed along by railways during the latter part of the last century.
I accept that the railway station is in a poor state. It is amazing how, after years of neglect of the station, British Rail is claiming that it wishes to have a showpiece station in Derby. It is a pity that in earlier years British Rail did not take a similar view and expend moderate sums of money on the station to keep it in a decent condition.
Before we adjourn for the Easter recess I hope there is a change of heart not only by British Rail but by the Department of the Environment. If British Rail does not change its plans to demolish the station I hope that those in the Department who are responsible for taking decisions will think again and decide to spotlist this building which could be a greater credit to the city of Derby.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We ought to debate quite a number of things before the Easter recess because there are always matters that need to be debated. One of the things that should have been debated today of all days, after what occurred at Prime Minister's Question Time, was the action of a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins). Surely he should have presented himself here tonight and used this opportunity to explain precisely what the game was all about in 1976 when he was signing the authorisation for sub-machine guns for the police and not even telling the Prime Minister at the time.
We all know that the right hon. Gentleman had a lot of things on his mind then. He was in the process of getting involved in that superstructure that is now busily collapsing — the Common Market. He was looking forward to getting that big fat pension that he got out of the Common Market or, more strictly, out of the British taxpayers. While he was engaged in that activity, looking after his after-life, he signed the authorisation to give submachine guns to the police but never told the then Prime Minister about it. We have heard about the Prime Minister's defaults in an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), but the action of the right hon. Member for Hillhead takes some beating.
There is another thing about the right hon. Member that people should understand. At that time and for many years he was talked about in the media and in clever newspaper articles as the great libertarian of his day; he was the man who brought forth all the wonderful liberalising measures in the House of Commons. How he loved to stroke that Dispatch Box; he was never away from it. Then when he came back as an SDP Member he wanted this place on the Bench. Is this the man who is supposed to have signed a document authorising the provision of sub-machine guns for the police—the right hon. Member for Hillhead, the exposed Home Secretary? Never. He should have come here tonight. It may be that it escaped his notice that there was a three-hour debate today starting after ten o'clock. Of course it is not a decent hour for somebody who is living on claret. I do not know when one drinks it, but I assume that it is the claret hour. He had a duty to come here. That is one of the things that should have been debated, albeit for a short time.
We should have debated, as we did on another occasion, so I shall not at this late hour, the international banking system. I have been reading about it today and it looks as though it is rearing its ugly head again. I see that they cobbled together a little deal at the weekend for Argentina—$500 million. What did they do? To save the banks—not Argentina—they went along to Brazil, which is the biggest debtor in the world and said, "Look here" —this is America talking, with some help from Her Majesty's Government—"if we give you, Brazil, a bit of money, and give you Mexico, a bit of money, will you take part in a consortium to lend over $500 million to Argentina, because it is due to break the IMF deadline at the weekend?" Lloyds Bank came in at the last minute and chucked in a few coppers. Did it do it to save the Argentines? No, to save themselves, so that the Argentines and the British, and the rest, those that create the wealth, can be bailed out.
That is one of the reasons why the interest rates went up again today in the United States. They are having one hell of a job to hang on until the election. That is twice in the past few weeks that they have pushed interest rates up, and with a $184 billion deficit. We shall hear more about that, but I shall not talk about it tonight because there will be other opportunities.
I shall refer briefly to one or two things in the coal mining industry, and it would be wrong of me not to do so. In the past three weeks, we have clamoured for a debate on the coal mining dispute, and the police activity associated with it.

Mr. Eggar: Opposition Front-Bench Members have not.

Mr. Skinner: I cannot answer for them. I have been trying to tell the Front Bench of the Labour party about the Common Market — I think that I am succeeding. I thought that it was a folly to start trotting out these statements. In coded language, it is true that we have "shifted our ground" on the Common Market, just at the moment when it is shuddering to a halt. I had to do a bit of talking in other places to make sure that the Front Bench understands that at this moment, when the British people are changing.
In the poll that the LBC held the other night, some 70 per cent. said they were against the Common Market, and that is just the people with telephones — what about those who do not have them? That issue is an important one, and one about which my Front Bench is beginning to learn. On the other issue, they will have to wait. For what it is worth, I have been telling them within the confines of the parliamentary Labour party for the past three weeks——

Mr. Winnick: Don't say that.

Mr. Skinner: I was not sent here to keep my mouth shut, but to speak my mind, and to speak on behalf of my class. I do not have to take into account what some people do when they say, "Ah, but it is too sensitive. This is a very difficult thing, there is a yes and a no to it. If one looks at it from one angle or the other, it is difficult and we cannot sell it in a nice cosy package." Politics is not about that and neither is life. It is not about finding a cosy way out but about having to make up one's mind about the issues that present themselves, and on each day that passes, uncomfortable decisions have to be made
On the decisions about the miners, our side should be backing them up to the hilt. Those miners in Nottinghamshire should be joining the 80 per cent. that are out on strike, fighting for the right to work, even though——

Mr. Eggar: rose——

Mr. Skinner: I have answered the hon. Gentleman once—what does he want, jam on it?

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is as courteous as ever. Would he like to expand a little and tell us what view of the Leader of the Opposition was upstairs in the Committee room? Did he accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, or reject it?

Mr. Winnick: Do not be mischievous.

Mr. Eggar: What was the message that the Leader of the Opposition gave to the members of the parliamentary Labour party?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell him to mind his own business.

Mr. Skinner: The message will be clear next week. There has been a bit of jiggery—pokery between the Front-Benchers and the Speaker—I do not know to what extent Mr. Speaker has had his elbow nudged. There should have been a debate before now. It might have been unnecessary for hon. Members to refer to this subject tonight, although I do not doubt that some of us would have done so anyway.
Reference has been made to Mr. MacGregor, who has written in The Standard. He had the gall to talk about the


"cruel deceit" practised by the National Union of Mineworkers. If anybody is guilty of cruel deceit and lying, it is Mr. MacGregor. He has a long record of lying, not only in this country but about the company he ran in America. He lied about the fact that there was no hit list of pit closures.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is De Lorean.

Mr. Skinner: I did not want to deal with him on this occasion. Mr. MacGregor said that the NCB did not have a hit list. He lied, as did his predecessor, Siddall. We now all know that there is a hit list. They lied about the Cortonwood closure. At a Yorkshire pit that they closed — my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West knows more about this matter than I do, because it occurred just a hop, step and a jump from where he lives —they said "Go on. Get to Cortonwood. How old are you, Jack? Fifty years old? All right, there are at least five years life at Cortonwood." Within a few weeks, the liar MacGregor, along with others in the NCB in Yorkshire, closed Cortonwood. That was a deliberately provocative act. People should understand that that was one of the reasons why the NUM introduced the closure notices. Mr. MacGregor lied about Cortonwood being a receiving pit for at least five years. Mr. MacGregor lied also about the effects of the overtime ban. That ban had not been operating for more than a few weeks when Mr. MacGregor went on the media claiming that the overtime ban was saving the NCB money. Some people say, "Maybe he did not lie. Maybe he was naive. Maybe he was thick." I do not believe that. He was telling the British establishment through the press and television, "We need to stop these miners earning overtime. It is crippling the NCB." He told a fairy story, saying that the measure was saving money. He said, "It can go on forever for all I care."
By the turn of the new year, the NCB accountants were proving to the Government that the board would need much more money to survive. Only a few weeks ago, an order was brought before the House calling for about £200 million to balance the books—half was needed because the overtime ban was crippling the NCB's accounts.
North Derbyshire appeared to be about to have a £20 million profit until the overtime ban was imposed. At the end of the financial year, the area was due to suffer a £20 million loss. That is lying on a large scale to frighten the miners into not fighting for their jobs. Mr. MacGregor should be dispatched back to Amax Inc. to pick up the pieces he left over there. He was talked about as a great financial whiz-kid when he ran that giant American company. He was brought over here to smash the steel industry, and subsequently he started into the coal industry on the basis that he had some special talents.
The Financial Times of 29 March 1983, writing of Mr. MacGregor's wonderful exercise at Amax, stated:
Amax is now in full scale retreat. The company reported a net loss of $390m for 1982. …
Analysts who treated him with adulatory respect during the good years now grumble that he expanded too fast and diversified too far. He is also criticised for the shortcomings of his successors, who for the most part were put in place by his regime.
That is the man who has been sent to smash the coal industry. What a wonderful record he has.
The NCB is lying about coal stocks. Many power stations do not have more than two or three weeks of coal.
If the railwaymen and transport workers combine effectively as they did in 1972 and 1974, the coal will run out in at those power stations ere long.
Mr. MacGregor will leave a trail of destruction when he leaves the NCB. He is just in it for short-term gains, the glory and the one and a half million quid he will no doubt shove into his back pocket when he gets back to America. Handing over that money was nothing but one of those great tax fiddles which were operating across the Irish sea when Mr. De Lorean received similar sums of money on a different occasion.
When the Notts miners voted as they did today—I do not run away from it, some of them are my constituents, because I am not cushioned in a Yorkshire coalfield, where all the miners are on strike—I could have buried my head and thought, "Some are striking and some are not." I believe that the Notts miners will regret their action if it lasts for too long. We cannot be sure, because some Nottinghamshire pits are lined up for closure by Mr. MacGregor, backed by the Government. Although the NCB has tried to hide the fact it is ready to shut them, some of the people in the Notts area know the names—Pye Hill 1, Pye Hill 2, and Moorgreen with one or two more to follow. [Interruption.] Someone said, "Nearly worked out." I suppose Conservative Members are nearly worked out running about having their arms twisted signing that motion on behalf of the Prime Minister. The Whips have raced after 270-odd Conservative Members. It has been an appalling spectacle as they tried to get 270-odd names on a motion saying that the Prime Minister has nothing to fear about Oman. It is interesting——

Mr. Nicholas Soames: rose——

Mr. Skinner: I expect the hon. Gentleman signed it among the 270-odd, and the Prime Minister talks about a national ballot for the miners. Despite all the arm twisting, the Whips do not have more than 70 per cent. of the Tory Members of Parliament to back the Prime Minister. At least we can claim that 80 per cent. of the miners are out on strike.

Mr. Soames: rose——

Mr. Skinner: Go on then.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
With his great knowledge of mining will he tell us why the miners are not to be afforded the opportunity to express, as one body, their views on whether they should be on strike? Why are they not being allowed to have a national ballot?

Mr. Skinner: For the simple reason that the national executive, including members from Nottingham, met a month ago and agreed unanimously to take that course of action.
The Tories have a cheek to talk about ballots. This is the same Government who have been to the Leader of the House to bring before the House next week a Bill to abolish elections, not just in London but for several million people in the metropolitan areas. They have the cheek to say that they are worried about ballots when they are abolishing people's freedom to go to the polling booth and cast a vote in favour of someone they want to represent them on the local authority. Perhaps they should have had a ballot on GCHQ. They should have had a ballot on whether Mr. MacGregor should get £1·5 million, or on whether the chairman of the Tory party should receive an


extra £5,000 a year of taxpayers' money to carry out a tin-pot job on behalf of the Prime Minister—that is £100 a week of taxpayers' money. Where did they find that money? We keep hearing from the Dispatch Box that they do not have money, but they found it for him, although he does not have to do any extra work for it.
The Government constantly talk about law and order and say that we are short of policemen to stop the increasing crime rate. We heard today that robberies have increased by 50 per cent. since the Government came to power. Yet the Government can find 10,000 policemen immediately to sent to the midlands, and can pay them £85 a day for the nightshift alone. They can find plenty of money when they want to curb the freedom of people who are fighting for their right to work. That is why I have written to Derbyshire county council asking why my constituents—miners and everyone else—should have to pay this massive bill for allowing the police to come to the midlands. I hope that the council will not pay the bill.
Many of my constituents, and people from Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, are saying that the police are carrying out a political act when they try to curb the freedom of NUM members. There were reports today of some policemen in plain clothes wearing NUM badges acting like the Gestapo, listening to the conversations of pickets and then instructing snatch squads to pick them out. At Shirebrook in my constituency the police tried to bus through a handful of miners, not to turn coal but just to take part in strike-breaking. They got together a few miners, not outside the pit gates but further away, put blankets over their heads, shoved them on the bus and then took them through the picket line. That is strike-breaking. About 1,800 men work at that pit——

Mr. Ray Powell: Is my hon. Friend also aware that the phones of some striking miners have been tapped—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—to find out what action the miners are taking? Has he received information from miners in his area about this phone-tapping of pickets?

Mr. Skinner: There is no question but that phone-tapping occurs in every major industrial dispute. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) recalls what happened at Stocksbridge, where it was proved that a phone had been tapped during a strike to save the steel industry from MacGregor's butchery.
At Shirebrook the police gathered together about a dozen miners and bussed them through the picket line, not to turn coal but just so that the police can say to the coal board, "We are helping to drive a thin wedge through." In other words, they are strike-breaking. That is a political act by the police force. Not only are the Government happy for that to happen, but they are guiding the police along the way.
I was on the Bolsover picket line at 12.15 pm on Friday 30 March— [HON. MEMBERS: "Secondary picketing."] Yes, secondary picketing, and I was proud to take part in it. At 12.15 pm one young Bolsover lad shouted, "Scab," to another one in the yard. He was arrested, despite protests from me and everyone else, by the Derbyshire constabulary —not not policemen from outside. I suppose that he will have to pay the penalty—at 23 years of age — for calling someone a scab. It is a sorry state of affairs when people cannot use words like that when they

feel so strongly about someone who has crossed the picket line. The Leader of the House may laugh, but I was there. I saw it all and heard it all and I have put down everything that I saw.
I remember another incident a few years ago when the Labour Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), went to address a Police Federation do. The police were angry with him. It was an industrial argument and they did not like what he was doing about one thing and another. Members of the Police Federation, which I suppose might loosely be described as a trade union, decided without any let or hindrance—no one to stop them at the Dartford tunnel or on the county borders of Yorkshire, Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire—to stand outside that big meeting just like pickets and they nearly smashed his car in. That was on television for millions to see, but there were no charges of breach of the peace for those people. The police could get off scot free, and when they act on the Prime Minister's instructions as part of her political army—she is treating this battle as though she were fighting the Argentines—they can get away with murder.
I had a report from NUM headquarters today saying that the police have now placed road blocks on all major roads leading out of Yorkshire, stopping miners leaving the county, that the police are informing miners that their car insurance is not valid for passengers travelling to picket, and that magistrates are beginning to state as a condition of bail that miners must agree to picket only their own place of work. Those conditions of bail are now being superseded by instructions not to visit any places or premises other than their own place of work or any other premises associated with the coal industry, and not to picket at any time any premises or place of business or industry.
All that is supposed to be in the name of freedom. If those conditions had been announced in Poland when Lech Walesa was organising the massive campaign there, what would the Tory press have said? What did the Tories say when similar incindents took place? More than 500 pickets have already been arrested just fighting for the right to work. That is the hyprocisy of the Tory Government. They were elected in 1983 on arguments about freedom.

Mr. Jim Lester: Does the hon. Gentleman admit that if he were an elected member of the Polish Assembly he would not have the right to speak as he is now speaking?

Mr. Skinner: The way this country is going, they will stop it here as well if they get half a chance. I am quite serious about that, given the developments that I have seen in the past few years and the way in which the Government have been curbing civil liberties. The freedom to work has been taken away from between 4 million and 5 million people, depending which set of statistics one takes. In large areas of Derbyshire, most of Nottinghamshire and parts of Yorkshire, the freedom to travel has been taken away. Now people cannot even use the word that so aptly describes those who cross picket lines, so the Government are now putting a bar on the freedom of speech. All that has happened in the space of a few weeks.
It is said that every cloud has a silver lining. At least this strike will have shown the British nation—those who want to listen, not that lot on the Tory Benches—just how fast the Government have moved in taking away freedoms from the British people.
The Government have not done it for everybody—for people such as Eddie Shah. He has the freedom to break the law and to get away with it. He has not filed his accounts, not only for 1983 but for 1982 and 1979. On three occasions Eddie Shah has broken the law by not complying with section 1 of the Companies Act and sending in the accounts of the Messenger Newspaper Group Ltd. He happens to be a friend of the Prime Minister. They had a tete-a-tete just after the Blackpool conference, when I suppose together they conspired to bring about further limitation on picketing at the Warrington works later that year. There is freedom for Eddie Shah to break the law, but in this dispute the miners are treated like aliens in their own country.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The House will understand if I feel that the next few minutes will be like after the Lord Mayor's show. I bow to the eloquence — even violence — of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but in many ways I am glad that he is over the border in another county.
Tonight I wish to speak for Nottinghamshire, and I am grateful to all the citizens there. They are a most sensible people, and perhaps they are also grateful that the hon. Member for Bolsover is over the border in another county.
Last month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services issued a document to health authorities about a scrutiny programme on ambulance services. It so happens that the service in Nottinghamshire had already taken on board much of the substance of that investigation. The concern that I draw to the attention of the House is that somehow the suggestion in the Minister's letter would diminish the quality of the service and provide what the local press described as a "two-tier system" of ambulance service—a kind of first and second-class service—with the primary purpose of saving money.
The local press rightly drew attention to that concern. That is its right and proper function, because it was feared that saving money might, possibly by diminishing that service, bring distress and danger to the citizens of Nottinghamshire. Six cases have been reported to the press, whose content was most disturbing. I shall not trouble the House with the details, but, by putting two and two together and making five, it was suggested that the new system must be to blame.
Happily, my Nottinghamshire colleagues took the opportunity of the spotlight that the press had switched on to look into the matter. While in no way diminishing the seriousness of the cases that have been reported, it was against the background of the totality of the service provided that, with a clear conscience, we felt able to pay tribute to all the staff of the county's ambulance service.
The Nottingham service has a staff of 400, who each and every day of the year respond to about 120 accident and emergency calls. Each and every day they carry out about 1,700 non-emergency passenger journeys. The former function is a cover awaiting call at any time, day or night, responding to 999 calls. We were in the main station when that telephone rang, and two minutes elapsed between the first ring and the report of an ambulance leaving the nearest station. Within eight minutes the radio had confirmed that it had arrived at the scene of the accident, somewhere in the county some 15 miles from

where we were. That service was the fully equipped ambulance, the traditional white vehicle with flashing blue lights, and everything necessary.
There is a second service—not a second-class, but a different, service — which is much more a careful management planning application, and much of that work is on 48 hours' notice. It has a sophisticated computer planning programme. I was amused when the officer put together the day's route for one of the vehicles, because I wondered why it was necessary to go to the second place of decimals for the time that it would take for the vehicle to complete its journey. That somewhat freak situation aside, it really was a most sophisticated planning function for what most lay people would describe as a busing service and not an ambulance service in the commonly accepted sense.
What was interesting about that service — and for most of us who visited that station it was new and arose, quite rightly, out of the concern that we had seen reported in the press—was that for much less than half of the total expenditure of the ambulance service, that non-emergency service was making virtually 90 per cent. of the journeys.
What we saw, therefore, was a sensible approach to specialisation, providing the right kind of vehicle for the right task, and the right and properly trained staff for the duties they were called upon to carry out. We saw an attempt, not yet perfect by any means, but a genuine attempt, to use the resources available in the most effective way and in a way which I would not hesitate to recommend to other authorities which are only now in receipt of the DHSS document. It seemed to me—and I believe that my colleagues would agree—that the willingness of the officers and staff to take criticism and look objectively at what they were doing was highly commendable. The way in which the staff in Nottingham responded deserves the commendation of the House, and that is why I bring it to the attention of the House tonight.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I wish to intervene during this debate tonight to raise two things briefly and one thing principally.
One of the points that I wish to raise briefly is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I believe that it is wrong for us on the Opposition benches to claim a monopoly of concern over the loss of civil rights that is taking place in the coalfields. I find it very difficult to understand why it is that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have not begun to express similar concern, because throughout the country there are many Conservatives who are ill at ease, and hon. Gentlemen know it.
It is like the old argument about the bomb. I have always found it difficult to understand how it is possible for every Conservative Member of this House to be a multilateralist. It must be that Conservative pressures are exerted upon them in their constituency parties that prevent the liberal thinking which many hon. Members on this side of the House adopt, and which I certainly do.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen will surface over these coming weeks and express concern to the Government. If they are unwilling to do it on the Floor of the House, let us hope that they will do it in private to their own Ministers, because something is going on which causes us


concern. It has been mentioned repeatedly over the last few days and it begs answers from the Government. Yet we have a stone wall of silence.

Dr. Michael Clark: Could I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that part of the civil rights of this country is the right to pass freely through the gates of one's place of work? And does he not agree that there are many Labour people in the country, and perhaps many Labour Members of the House, who consider that the denial of that liberty in Yorkshire is a denial of civil rights?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A person who approaches a picket line makes a choice. What he does is up to him. The hon. Gentleman will find that enshrined in every piece of legislation and in all guidance given by the TUC. It is his right to choose. If he chooses not to cross the picket line, that is his decision and it is not an invasion of his freedom. He is exercising his freedom, and he is aware of what he is doing if he crosses the picket line.
Different perceptions exist between Labour and Conservative Members on many issues, and that brings me to the second matter that I wish to raise, that of Oman. [Interruption.] This matter will not die a death. It will persist and be raised repeatedly until we get the answers. It will not go away. When, one day, the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and makes a statement, it will end, but not before.
We have different perceptions of what constitutes acceptable conduct by Ministers of the Crown. Many people, both inside and outside the House, believe that, even if the Prime Minister knew of her son's interest, and even if she had raised the question of Cementation during those negotiations, that would constitute acceptable conduct. They are entitled to hold that view though they cannot understand why Labour Members and others in the House are expressing reservations about that form of activity.
They do not understand that there is a different perception by other hon. Members of the act of discussing a contract when it could be seen that her son was a beneficiary in terms of being in receipt of a commission. They are unwilling to accept that two different perceptions exist and that, while we in the House are divided on the issue, people in the country are equally divided on whether what happened was acceptable conduct.
We are trying to establish the truth. We are not asking Conservative Members to accept our terms and our perception of what is acceptable conduct. We are simply saying that we have a right to know the truth, and then let the country decide in its own way what it believes is right and proper.
Even in my family there are different perceptions. I have relatives who believe that what happened was perfectly acceptable. I do not believe that. However, I do not challenge their judgment and they do not challenge mine. But we are all equally entitled to know the truth, and that is what this debate is about. That is why we do not intend to let go.
I come to the main point that I wish to raise, and I raise it with a heavy heart because I have sought every possible way of not having to raise it tonight. It relates to Cementation and to certain aspects of Messrs. Cementation International Limited's arrangements with respect to export guarantee support for cover on the

contract to build the university in Oman. Later I shall refer to seven telephone calls that I made today to Cementation to try to avoid the need for me to raise the matter tonight. I did not wish to come to the House to discuss it, and Cementation was told clearly that I had investigated every other possible means of raising the issue and that this was the only option left open to me.
In relation to these arrangements for export credit guarantee support and cover for the contract, I have until tonight made no public statements. When I have been pressed—because journalists have known of my interest in the subject—I have said that I was not willing to make a public statement because I felt that to do so would not be in the public interest and that it would be unfair to Cementation.
I was approached by a number of journalists and other persons who referred me to what they believed to be the case. These are allegations. They are not founded on anything more than hearsay. It is on that basis that I have to bring them to the House. It is on that basis that I sought not to bring them to the House. The allegations are not proven. They were that Cementation had involved itself in irregularities in relation to the export credit guarantee cover which it sought on various sub-contracted parts of the contract to build the university.
When I was first approached I wrote to the Committee of Public Accounts and asked it, in so far as the accounting officer of the ECGD reports to that Committee, whether it would be willing to approach the ECGD on behalf of the taxpayer to ask it to carry out an investigation into the allegations that had been made to me. In my letter to the Chairman of the PAC on 8 March I said:
During the course of the last few weeks I have been able to discuss the matter of Cementation's Export Credit Guarantees Department cover with a number of people and during the course of one particular conversation statements were made which I feel compelled to raise before the Public Accounts Committee. I am informed by sources close to Cementation that every effort was made to maximise the value of that part of the contract covered by ECGD.
That is a perfectly acceptable activity.
It is alleged that Cementation's cover as provided by ECGD was the subject of a number of conditions and assurances given to the Department on domestic British content to the Contract and that these conditions have been deliberately broken in a number of respects. Contracts are alleged to have been passed abroad in respect of work that was the subject of the condition that it should be carried out at home here in the United Kingdom.
That would also take into account the arrangement for European work to be included under the general heading of British ECGD cover because there is some arrangement whereby European work can be included under our general heading of cover.
I raised that matter with the PAC. I clearly cannot comment on the Committee's deliberations because I should probably be in contempt, but I can say that it was the Committee's decision not to proceed with my complaint. I then wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General referring to discussions that had taken place during the course of the Committee where clearly he was in attendance. I asked him whether he would be willing to carry out inquiries into my complaint.
In his reply of 29 March the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
In brief, on the E.C.G.D., I have a statutory obligation to undertake a financial and regularity audit, which culminates in my giving a published audit opinion on the accounts: a statutory right to undertake an investigation into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which it has used its resources in


discharging its functions and a power to report to the House of Commons on the results of my audit and investigations. The effect of section 9 of the National Audit Act of 1982, was to give me the power to report separately from the accounts, but the power to report remains confined to reports of the House of Commons. Section 1(2) of that Act made me an officer of the House: and section 1(3) specifies that I should take into account any proposals made by the P.A.C. in determining whether to carry out any examination.
I then miss a paragraph and the letter goes on:
It follows that I can not undertake an inquiry dealing with the points which you have raised and report the results to you as an individual member of the House. Particularly in the light of the 1982 Act I do not think I could reasonably disregard the Public Accounts Committee's reaction to your request, go ahead with a special investigation with the points you have raised and report the results to the House of Commons. What I can say, however, is that we shall take account of the points you have made in our continuing monitoring of the E.C.G. In addition may I suggest that if you wish to pursue the particular queries raised in P.A.C. 135 your best course would be to express these as precisely as possible and address them direct to the accounting officer of the E.C.G. Jack Gill?
That was the route that I intended to take. None of this matter had been made public. It had all been dealt with confidentially. I had not made any public statements that might have embarrassed the company, any hon. Member or any Committee. It was all under wraps.
I then took advice about whether I could approach the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Before I discuss that point, I shall quote from another document in my possession. Yesterday, giving some support of the information that I had received about irregularities, an article by Paul Foot appeared in the Daily Mirror under the heading:
Flakt or Fiction? How a juicy slice of the Oman contract went to Sweden".
He said:
A slice of the Oman University contract, which was won by Cementation in a burst of patriotism by the firm's consultant Mark Thatcher, and his mother,…has gone to a Swedish company.
This has annoyed at least one British company which tendered for the contract…Mr. George Fennell, managing director of Unicoils of Sussex, complained in a letter to"——
In order to avoid mentioning the hon. Member to whom he wrote, I shall skip part of the letter. The hon. Member had visited the factory. According to Mr. Foot, Mr. Fennell reminded the hon. Member of his visit and complained:
that a £300,000 contract for air conditioning in the Oman University buildings had been awarded to the Swedish company, Flakt. He said he believed in free trade, but this was a special case of the Prime Minister promoting British business.
Whatever—the hon. Member concerned——
wrote back has entirely satisfied Mr. Fennell. 'This was private between us,' he said. 'I have nothing to say about it.' The contract clearly causes some confusion at Cementation. When I first asked about it, a spokeswoman told me: 'Flakt is a Belgian company and this is part of the percentage of the contract we were allowed to put with EEC companies.' When I protested that Flakt was in fact a Swedish company, and pointed out that Sweden is not a member of the EEC, the spokeswoman said: 'Our contract is with Flakt Products, of Staines, Middlesex.' Mr. Gordon Ruxton, a director of Flakt, told me: 'The air conditioning units will not be made in Britain. They will be made at our factory in Stockholm.'
My complaints have been general, but Mr. Paul Foot identifies what he believes to be a specific complaint. It is also alleged that a tile contract was given to a Turkish company—Turkey is not in the Common Market either—and that an aluminium window contract for which two British companies bid and were legitimately undercut by an Italian company within the Common Market has

been given to an Omani contractor. These are all allegations, and I would have preferred not to have had to bring them before the House.
It is believed by some that all those contracts are the subject of ECGD support.
The allegations may be scurrilous. They may be totally unfounded. Equally, it may be that they are true. That is why I have had to talk about them tonight. I believe that the House needs to know—and that some way should be found of telling the public—what happened.
I rang Cementation at lunchtime today and asked to speak to the chairman, Mr. Grundy. I rang him on three occasions and was informed that he could not speak to me. I then rang Mr. James Poole, the external relations spokesman to whom I had been referred, on two occasions. Subsequently, during the course of three further telephone conservations, I was able to talk to him. I put it to him that I wanted to send a letter to ECGD but in transmission of that letter, even though I was a Member of Parliament, I might well be transmitting a libel.
To avoid having to raise the matter on the Floor of the House, I wanted a simple assurance from Cementation that, in the transmission of that document, I would not be subject to expensive litigation that I can call ill afford. Mr. James Poole consulted Cementation International Ltd. I was able to speak to him some hours later and he said that consideration had been give to my request and that Cementation was unwilling to give me such an undertaking. I argued firmly that if Cementation gave me that undertaking on the one document that I sent to the Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, I would make no public statements and would not reveal its contents to any person or journalist anywhere, apart from in private. I said that I would not make any statement about that correspondence to anyone apart from people in ECGD. I also gave an undertaking that, in the event of the allegations being found to be scurrilous, I would not repeat them and that I would refer to the matter only if the allegations were founded on truth. It was clear in my conversation with Mr. James Poole that I was giving Cementation every opportunity to allow me to deal with the matter privately so that nobody would know about it. I was refused the undertaking. In the final conversation I explained that I had no option but to use privilege and raise the matter as I have this evening.
I may have made a rather long-winded speech, but I must put these matters on the record. I hope that the media do not dramatise what I have said. I have tried to put it in a reasonable and sensible way. I do not know whether there is truth in the allegations, but they were referred to me as a Member of Parliament. The only thing that I could have done, other than raise it as I have, was visit Cementation and make a statement about the allegations. However, I was also informed, based on legal advice, that even doing that I might commit a libel, so limited are our powers as Members of Parliament.
I could have tabled questions on documents that I had sent to Ministers. The problem with that is that most questions on Cementation are now blocked. They were firmly blocked in the Prime Minister's reply this afternoon to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). In many ways, she is responsible for what is happening this evening. Every attempt by right hon. and hon. Members now to table questions on Cementation is no longer dealt with in the Table Office. It might come as a surprise to hon. Members to learn that any question about


the contract for the university in Oman, Cementation or declaration of interest is automatically referred to the Chief Clerk. That is the measure of the attempt by Downing street, Bernard Ingham, the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Conservative party, and the British Establishment——

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When I have finished this point.

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall give way at my discretion. Would you point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that is the normal procedure of the House? Every attempt has been made by people in power to ensure that the full truth is not known.

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Clerks of the House are in any way being influenced in the exercise of their discretion by the Government.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, on the contrary. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said. The Clerks are under instruction. They have to comply with the rules of the House in the laying of questions. If questions are blocked, the Clerks are not allowed to lay those questions. Those questions are blocked. What this means is that, as the blocking mechanism is used by Ministers in relation to this particular matter, increasingly Members will have to use the Floor to raise their queries. That is what we will do. Whenever questions are blocked, we will raise them on the Floor, whether it be direct to the Departments concerned, whether it be to the Leader of the House, or whether it be to the Prime Minister.
Having sat on two Committees—the Committee on Public Accounts, where it is very difficult to raise this matter, and five meetings of the Committee on Members' Interests — I believe that we have reached the stage where it is very difficult to get an objective judgment from a Committee where there are clearly political considerations, and that we are coming to a point where it may well be that Parliament is not competent to deal with this matter.
I may be dissenting from the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) in that respect, in the sense that he believes that a special Committee of the House could be set up. I am sure that he would even have reservations about that. It may be necessary to go even further and to have a full commission of inquiry into what happened, because the people——

Mr. Williams: I do not think that there is any dissension between my hon. Friend and myself. The Committee that I was considering was purely in relation to the adequacy of the rules of guidance. My hon. Friend is referring to a commission of inquiry into the actual incident. I would agree with him that, since we cannot get the answers on the Floor of the House, and since we cannot get the answers through questions, it may well be that the route that he suggests is the one that we will have to press for on the actual Oman incident.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend, when talking about rules of guidance, is obviously referring to

the Cabinet memorandum on Ministers and their requirement to declare or divest themselves of interests, the problem whereby the Prime Minister has overall control of the judgment of whether people are complying, and the fact that in this case there is a conflict between her function and her own position as the Minister about whom the complaints are being made. To that extent, therefore, this is a matter that could be dealt with internally by the House.
As regards the actual issue of what happened in Oman, however, it may well be that we now need a commission of inquiry to be set up, because the truth will come out in the end. We are not going to let go. When I hear hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches growl, as they do each time these questions are asked, I tell them that they can keep on growling because, until we get the answers, the House will not be satisfied. Nor will the people in the country be satisfied. In the end it may well become an even greater issue, because outside the House journalists who six or 10 weeks ago were indifferent to what happened are now taking an interest. The fact that there are British journalists scurrying around the middle east and Hong Kong, that major media programmes are carrying out their own investigations, and that there are many Fleet Street journalists now involved in investigating this affair stems solely from the fact that the Prime Minister has sought to delay in replying to the House. If she had been forthcoming 10 weeks ago, those journalists would not now today be involved in their activities.
The longer it goes on, the more those journalists are going to get involved. I can tell by the number of people who call me and to whom I refuse to give statements because of my particular position as a member of the two Committees to which I was making representations. They are pressing more and more, all the time. If people in the country at large believe that the matter is dead and that Parliament does not appear to be responding in so far as it is dead, they make a mistake. The change that we have noticed over the past few months is that increasingly Conservative Members are privately expressing reservations. It is well known also that when my motion was tabled and the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) tabled his counter motion, the first 200 signatories went on his motion with great ease. After that, the Whips had to press many Conservative Members to sign the motion. Many of them objected most strongly, for they felt that they were being intimidated by their Whips and by Ministers to sign a motion when they did not want to do so. They felt that they were being required to sign what was in effect an oath of loyalty to the Prime Minister.
We cannot run Parliament on that basis, and we should not set out to do so. It is about time that Conservative Members demanded of the Prime Minister that she was forthcoming and made a statement so that the public could feel assured that the office of Prime Minister and the integrity of that office was being fully protected, because at present questions are being asked about that.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Before the House rises for the Easter recess it would be helpful if it considered the level of crime, which is a severe and increasing problem, and some of the measures that could be taken to reduce it. This not a subject that lends itself to a short debate, nor is it a controversial subject, because there are views on both sides of the House which are


extremely helpful. It is a non-party political subject. We all have a common interest in securing a reduction in the levels of crime. There is no monopoly of wisdom on either side of the House.
The figures are alarming. In 1972 there were 1·5 million recorded offences, and by 1982 the figure had risen to over 3 million. At the same time the clear-up rate was falling. It fell from 46 per cent. in 1972 to 37 per cent. in 1982. As crime increases the clear-up figures tend to fall.
When we read the press, we gain the impression that crimes of violence are the most common form of offences. That is because those crimes reach the press. The crime that has taken off over the past few years is that of burglary. There were about 500,000 burglaries in 1979, and that figure increased to about 800,000 in 1982. It is a figure that is increasing all the time and it is the offence that causes most fear to those living in south London. One of the saddest features is that in 1983 nearly a half of all the arrests in Britain were of young people under 21 years of age, and one-fifth of all arrests involved youngsters under the age of 16.
What can we do to help reduce the level of crime? Successive Governments, over 20 or 30 years, have not achieved a great deal. We can begin by setting a good example ourselves in our behaviour inside and outside the House. We can encourage—we should do so—public awareness of the problems of crime. We must spend more time trying to harness community co-operation in getting crime reduced. The growth of the neighbourhood watch scheme over the past few years, especially in London, has helped to reduce crime. Groups of residents in streets band together and keep an eye on one another's houses while their neighbours are away on holiday. They appoint a spokesman to keep in touch with the local police station. They are generally vigilant and they go in for the property marking scheme. This is an example of the public becoming involved. Where the neighbourhood watch schemes have operated, nearly 70 in the metropolitan area, crime, especially burglary, has fallen considerably.
The victim support scheme is another major way in which the public are involved. There are about 30 such schemes in the metropolitan area and they encourage members of the public to become involved in helping out. The purpose is to harness community co-operation.
The Home Office should begin the great debate on new ideas to help reduce crime. Does the Home Office spend enough time thinking about ideas? Its budget is enormous, but how much of it does it spend on publicity drives to try to make people aware of the problem? The amount is an infinitesimal part of the budget. Why does the Home Office not carry out an advertising campaign on television to try to drive the country into having a crime-free day? It is part of making the public aware of the problem and of the need to co-operate.
The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis produced an encouraging report recently. He dwelt on the neighbourhood watch scheme and the victim support scheme. He also mentioned police actually in force. There are too few policemen in the metropolitan area. Though the number rose last year by 750, in 1982 the authorised establishment of the police was similar to what it had been in 1972. During a 10-year period, when the number of crimes went up enormously, the number of police in force rose only slightly.
One good thing is that last year 100 officers were transferred from the traffic department to real operational

duties and the Commissioner has plans next year to transfer 100 more. If he could extend that to abolishing traffic wardens and devoting some of that money towards more police, he would get more support from the public.
Crime should be rooted out when people are young. That brings me back to what can be done in the schools. Is enough being done there? I am sorry to go back to an old theme, but I regret greatly that corporal punishment is not regularly used in all our schools. Notwithstanding what the European Court says, the use of corporal punishment in schools would help considerably. I think that we should ignore the European Court occasionally when it suits us. Teachers should be trained to teach children to have greater respect for the law. We should spend more time encouraging parents to be responsible for their children's crimes. Parents can be summoned to courts, but the summons is often ineffective. Parents can be fined, but many courts do not bother to go through this process.
Again, there might be changes in the courts system. Many motoring offences should be taken away from the courts. I attend court sometimes because of my job. In one court a man who has been caught speeding or who is appearing on a careless driving charge is fined £80; in the court next door someone who has committed a crime of violence is fined £30. There is not uniformity of sentencing. The motorist comes off badly.
Short, sharp deterrent sentences for first offenders rather than waiting until someone has committed several offences would be a good thing. By short sentences I mean a matter of days. It is cheaper to send someone into custody for a few days or a weekend than for months. When new prisons are built, we should concentrate on building constructive prisons like Coldingly prion in Surrey, which is an industrial prison. Not only has it a re-offending rate which is lower than that of many other prisons, but it actually makes a profit, because people are put to work. That is much better for the prisoner, and it is also better for the country in terms of money saved.
I have mentioned the need to put extra police in force, particularly in London. Many people in south London and in my constituency in North West Croydon fear that there are not enough policemen on the beat. The numbers on the beat have not increased dramatically in the last few years. How do we raise the money, because it all costs money? I sometimes think that lawyers make too much money out of the legal aid system. Perhaps I am at fault as one of them. In 1979 we were spending £55 million on the legal aid scheme in magistrates' courts and Crown courts. It is odd to think that in 1984 the projected figure is more than £130 million. That has almost tripled. In my experience, I do not think that many courts make detailed inquiries into the means of defendants before they grant legal aid. Far too few contribution orders are made by courts against legally aided persons.
That is not to say that we should not have a good legal aid system—of course we should. We have one of the best in the world, but legal aid is often granted too readily and not enough contribution orders are made. If we could raise money through the legal aid system, as we could if it were tidied up, we would have more money to put into the real way to keep crime down—more policemen on the beat.
I have made a few suggestions, and I draw this matter to the attention of the House to point out that over the next four years, if the crime rate goes up at the same rate at


which it has gone up over the past four years, we shall face even more major problems. The House is full of men of energy, vision and ability, and if much of that energy was spent on constructive thought on how to reduce the level of crime, the House would, in the long term, be doing a great service to the country.

Mr. Bob Clay: I shall return to the problem of civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has referred to the police activity in connection with the miners' dispute, and having a large number of members of the National Union of Mineworkers in my constituency, I shall also refer to the dispute.
Some hon. Members may feel that the only causes for complaint—although they are substantial and horrifying enough—about the abuse of civil liberties and police power, are taking place in the Nottinghamshire and midlands coalfields. Constituents of mine on the Durham coalfield have been horrified in the past few weeks. They are people who have no previous record of such an industrial dispute, who were not involved in the 1972 or the 1974 strikes and are not politically active. They have been horrified, when they went out to carry out what they saw as their necessary duty in the strike, to find that they were being threatened, that they could not cross the border into Northumberland, that they were being questioned—"Where are you going, where have come from, how long are you going to be there?" — and told not to come back.
There have been many incidences in Durham, such as that of car insurance, but what I find most horrifying is that it is alleged that coach operators have been told by the police that not only would their drivers run the risk of being charged if they drove miners to picketing duties, but that the police could make life difficult in the long term for coach operators who hired coaches to the NUM.
That is frightening, but I have to say that it is alleged because the coach operators concerned are so convinced by that suggestion of intimidation that they are not prepared to give their names and those of their companies. That is what is going on in Durham and Northumberland. It is not just Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire in the midlands. My constituents say to me that if this is the cradle of our democracy and where, at the end of the day, our civil liberties are preserved, why is it that the House of Commons is tolerating this massive abuse of police power and erosion of civil liberties?
On Wednesday, I travelled to the Greenham common United States air force base, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), and what I saw before I got to that base was strikingly reminiscent of what I had seen on the roads of Nottinghamshire the previous week. A police road block was placed a mile from the base. The only reason why I and my right hon. Friend were allowed to proceed down a public highway in broad daylight was that we showed our identification as Members of Parliament. What an extraordinary state of affairs. There was no security implication. There were no launchers outside the base and no security operation was occurring. The only conceivable purpose of those police road blocks was to prevent ordinary citizens who wished to observe or join in a protest from visiting the gates of the base.
Not only are miners stopped from passing from one part of the country to another and condemned to internal exile county by county, but peaceful peace protesters are to be prevented from moving towards those places where they wish to make their protest.

Mr. John Powley: To break the law.

Mr. Clay: As the hon. Gentleman is producing the type of intolerant comment with which we have become familiar whenever the matter has been raised in the House in the past few weeks, I refer to the exchange that occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned Poland. Conservative Members should reflect on one point. My hon. Friend referred to the rise of the free trade union, Solidarity, the activities in the shipyards of Gdansk and Stettin, led by men such as Lech Walensa. A sarcastic comment came from a Conservative Member to the effect that there was not a free Parliament over there and that people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover could not in that Parliament make speeches similiar to that which he made tonight.
It is worth remembering—I am the last person to apologise for the Stalinist traditions of the Polish Communist party—that there was a ferment in Polish society at the time of the rise of that free trade union movement. If hon. Members had watched television closely at that time they would have seen film of Communist party branches holding—admittedly, for a brief period — free elections. People who had been delegates to the Parliament and to the Communist party congress for many years were removed after a free vote and replaced by other people. For a brief period, there were democratic debates within that society and that Parliament. On reflection, it is interesting that those dissident elements—those new, pro-Solidarity elements — went to that Communist party congress and the Parliament to speak up for free trade unions were heard with more tolerance and more respect as they made out their case for civil liberties by the old guard of the Communist party than many Conservative party Members have shown in recent weeks to Opposition Members.
If Conservative Members do not believe me, they should check the films. Those people were heard in silence and with respect. That no longer happens. All that has died. It has been crushed and the iron fist has come down again. It is interesting that that Government managed to show more tolerance and restraint than many Conservative Members have been doing as Opposition Members raised matters that we think are crucial to democracy on our society.

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. gentleman give way?

Mr. Clay: I shall not give way. I wish to be brief. The hon. Gentleman has had one go already.
On arriving at the Greenham common air base on Wednesday, we discovered the conspiracy hatched up by the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Transport, Berkshire county council and the police last year. I presume that all hon. Members have read the minute about which one of my hon. Friends spoke earlier in the week. The documents state, "What shall we do about these peace protesters? We shall devise a road widening scheme?" It is an ingenious use of public money for a monetarist Government to devise a road-widening scheme specifically for the purpose of clearing away peace protesters. It


was not reported in the media, but that road-widening scheme will go on for a long tune, because there is a great deal of common land around the base and the women will camp on that common land.
Fencing around the area which goes on and on is preventing access by our citizens to common land. I wonder whether that is legal. II reminds me of the history of earlier troubles and developments in society. It is ironic that it is not the first time that people have moves in and started fencing off common land without so much as a "by your leave". That is now going on around Greenham common to prevent peaceful protesters from getting anywhere near the base.
The peace protesters can move from the common land, where they will now have to camp, to the main road in front of the base, where they have a legal right to be, but to do it—I do not know how far the fencing is, but it had gone a long way by Wednesday lunchtime—they will have to run about two miles down the road to get back to the gate of the base. What an appalling state of affairs. It has nothing to do with security, official secrets or anything else; it is just that the Government are no longer prepared to tolerate what is symbolic of the most peaceful protest that has been carried out consistently in this country for years.
Gentle, pacifist women who have offered no violence throughout their protest outside the base are cleared away because they are an embarrassment to the Government, and for another reason—while they are there, they see things. They see, as one of my hon. Friend's and I did three weeks ago, an enormous United States air force transport vehicle come out of the base and smash straight into two private cars. If the women had not been there they would not have seen that. When similar vehicles come out with cruise missiles, if the drivers are as competent as those two Americans, the women would not be able to say, "God help us when they come out with the cruise missiles."

Mr. Skinner: Probably on drugs.

Mr. Clay: As my hon. Friend says, they were probably on drugs. To drive out and write off two cars—the axles were broken and the cars were down on the road—is some achievement when one has just left the base. The explanation my hon. Friend offered might be correct. If that had happened this week it may not have been seen because the police are trying to ensure that no one can go near the base.
What else have the police done to try to clear away the women? They had a policy of trying to put as many of those women in gaol as possible under any pretext. A woman who has been arrested for obstruction, for example, can go to No. 1 court at Newbury magistrates' court and ask for bail or time to pay a fine. When asked for her address she can say, "Greenham common women's peace camp." The magistrate will refuse to accept that address and send her to prison for 14 or 28 days. In court No. 2 next door, a woman can appear on an identical charge and give Greenham common women's peace camp as the address and have it accepted.
Every 14 days, Mrs. Jane Dennett receives her war widow's pension from the Ministry of Defence addressed to Mrs. Jane Dennett at Greenham common women's peace camp, but when she went to Newbury magistrates'

court and gave that address, the magistrates sent her to Holloway for 28 days because she refused to give any other address.
Another lady who appeared before the court was told that Greenham common women's peace camp was not an acceptable address, so she said, "But I live there." The magistrate said that she must provide other addresses, so she gave him three others. Then the magistrate said, "But you have already told me that you live at Greenham common peace camp. I cannot accept these other addresses because I know that you will not be there if we require to re-arrest you," so he sent her to gaol as well. [Interruption.] Let us have it on the record that Conservative Members are saying, "Quite right; Let us have more of it."
All that is being done to try to disguise from the public what is going on inside an American base over which the British have no control. The women see the yellow, green and black alerts when American officers who live in the surrounding villages come screaming into the base at 5 am. All the Americans on the base go down the bunkers, and the game continues until eventually we have either won the war, or we are all dead, or both. Then the black flag goes up. The RAF troops and the Ministry of Defence police stand outside during this nuclear war and ask, "What the hell are we meant to be doing here?" The Government want to get rid of the women so that they cannot see those games.
I began by referring to the miners' dispute, and I said that I observed in Nottinghamshire the same sort of road blocks as I observed being organised by the police in Berkshire this week. It disturbs me that, wherever we turn these days, we see the elimination of protest, attacks on protesters and intolerance towards dissent. Conservative Members are cheering it on. It frightens me more than anything that I have seen in my limited life has frightened me—[HON. MEMBERS:"Good."] Conservative Members say, "Good." It will be good for them, will it not, when Members of Parliament who disagree with them are frightened as well? That is what we are moving towards, and the sooner that the mass of working people and peaceful protesters recognise it, the sooner we shall save ourselves from the authoritarian state towards which they are taking us.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I start with a highly personal confession. This is exactly the second anniversary of my becoming Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the only birthday cheer that I shall get. I am always encouraged by the fate of Leaders of the House, especially after two years in the post.
One of my more pleasing duties is to answer these Adjournment debates, because they have a charming divorce between content and reality.
The content is whether we should adjourn for a mere 10 days or so for an Easter break, and no one seriously contests that proposition. However, anyone listening casually to this debate would have thought that there were 1,001 reasons why this merciful release should not be conferred upon us. The truth is that these debates are the occasion when hon. Members properly assert the deep significance which they attach to issues which are


important now and which will be important when we return from the Easter holiday. That is a good reason for their being debated on the Floor of the House now.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was kind enough to give me notice of the points that he would raise about the fortunes of the Province during the next few weeks. I am sure that the fortunes of the Province will never pass unnoted so long as he guides the fortunes of the Official Unionist party. Despite his anxieties that Northern Ireland might be regarded by some as a failed entity, I certainly do not believe that such a view would be widely entertained in this House. The Province has asserted with determination and conviction its resolution to remain within the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the All Ireland Forum report, which we expect in the next few days or weeks. Clearly, that report will be of proper concern to the United Kingdom, albeit it will come from an independent foreign state, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, because we are bound together by geography, economy, a common history and much else. I assure him, however, that he should not go back at Easter feeling unduly apprehensive about the affairs of the Province. I certainly do not believe that there is any prospect of some ill-fated initiative. Indeed, I believe that a good precept for United Kingdom politicians to bear in mind in respect of the Province would be Talleyrand's injunction "Pas trop de zele." A policy of quiescence is perhaps the most helpful and I hope that the Government's actions will commend themselves.
In dealing with the various points raised I am racing against the clock, so I apologise for the necessarily disjointed way in which I refer to their contributions, but I shall try to comment on the issues in the order in which they were raised.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) expressed anxiety about the Official Secrets Act, especially section 2. I note what he said and I am sure that he is right that we shall be returning to the matter as a proper subject of public debate in the coming months. I do not believe that Conservatives feel quite the anxiety that the hon. Gentleman entertains, but we shall no doubt be able to explore that further.

Mr. Winnick: They did in 1978.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, well, times change and, more particularly, people change as they change positions. There is nothing extraordinary or novel about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) properly drew attention to the protective role of the state in what may broadly be described as Home Office issues. He referred especially to the welfare of the young in terms of under-age sexual relations and glue-sniffing. I am sure that those matters, too, will reasonably detain us as the months go by.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), looking ahead no further than next week, referred to the arguments preceding what he described as the GLC paving Bill. The exchanges between my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) displayed some of the racy controversy that will no doubt characterise the passage of that legislation and I was immensely grateful for the stout support that my hon.

Friend was prepared to confer upon the Government with regard to this important piece of local government legislation.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the subject of what one may describe in shorthand terms as the Oman contract. Obviously, I do not agree with the general tenor of their remarks. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman raised a valid point about the changing circumstances in which the rules of ministerial conduct have to be interpreted. Perhaps in less dramatic circumstances that topic might be addressed with a degree of constructive detachment. The general points made today, however, were designed to cast considerable doubt on the propriety with which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proceeded, and I must rebut them emphatically and totally. My right hon. Friend has answered many questions on the matter. The point at issue is not her preparedness to answer questions, but rather that the answers were deemed unsatisfactory by her would-be detractors.
The hon. Member for Workington asked about the export credits guarantee scheme. He explained the circumstances that persuaded him to withhold this matter from the House until this evening. I take note of what he said and shall refer it at once to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) asked about the future of the Elgin marbles. I have here far more authoritative words than I could ever construe, and I had better read them. The Government are still considering the reply to the Greek Government's request for the return of the Elgin marbles. A response is likely to be made shortly, but the Government's general position on the return of cultural objects has already been made clear, most recently by my noble Friend the Minister for the Arts in a debate on a proposal to amend the powers of the British museum to enable it to return such objects. That took place in another place last October. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in advance of the Government's formal reply to the Greek Government's request. That is why I prefer to make my own speeches.
The hon. Members for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) touched on the present coal strike. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Ogmore is no longer with us. It does not help this dispute, including the civil liberties aspect — which I know genuinely exercises Opposition Members—to say that Britain is rapidly becoming a police state. That is simply a travesty of what is happening. It will not help this situation, given that once it is all over the conflicting parties must learn to live together again. Every word spoken in this Chamber should have regard to that situation, which will have to proceed after a settlement.
The hon. Member for Bolsover embellished his contribution with references to the role of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) in the 1976 sub-machine gun issue. We have rumbled the Al Capone of social democracy. I have no doubt that the House will have opportunities to return to this topic at some stage after Easter.
In no sense do I wish to be dismissive of this serious situation. What I said earlier this afternoon was quite intended. In broad circumstances it is, I believe, proper for


the House to discuss these matters that are of great issue to the nation's economy. I understand that the civil liberties aspects are entertained by many Opposition Members, although I stoutly disagree with their interpretation of events.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) struck a chord with his appeal about Derby station. Oswestry was the citadel and heartland of the Cambrian railway. Therefore, only railway men can appreciate the deep emotions released in another railway man at the prospect of the abolition of that station, which is of such historic significance. I wish my hon. Friend well in his campaign. I am glad that he has Country Life on his side. It is a slight embellishment and novelty to our controversy to find that prayed in aid. I shall see that the Department of the Environment is alerted to the virtues of my hon. Friend's case.
I shall see that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) about the ambulance service are referred to the relevant Government Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) made a short but very persuasive speech about the problems of crime and raised the issue of the uniformity of sentences and the possibility of weekend sentences. These again are points which I believe will be with the House after our Easter break, and certainly they touch on matters of widespread public concern.
I have talked myself through the time. This is the first time that this debate has taken place at a late stage in the evening rather than in the early afternoon, but I would say that, although we may have lost a little in numbers, we have lost absolutely nothing in quality.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Friday 13th April do adjourn till Wednesday 25th April, and at its rising on Friday 4th May do adjourn till Tuesday 8th May, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 13th April until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the Order of 23rd June relating to Business of the House, Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government Business on Friday 27th April instead of Friday 13th April and Private Members' Bills which now stand in the Order Book for Friday 13th April shall have precedence over any other Bill which may have been set down for Friday 27th April: provided that the provisions of paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) shall apply to the arrangement of Bills on the Order Paper on that day.—[Mr. Lang.]

School Transport

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Dr. Michael Clark: I welcome the opportunity of raising the subject of school transport in rural areas and I would like to review the existing law on statutory provision of school transport, look at some of the shortcomings of the law and illustrate them by examples from my constituency, Rochford.
Section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 puts a duty on local education authorities to
make such arrangements for the provision of transport … as they consider necessary",
and the transport provided must be free. The word "necessary" is not defined, but it is quite common for authorities, when deciding what arrangements to make, to take into account the law relating to school attendance as set out in section 39 of the 1944 Act—namely, that parents have a duty to secure the attendance of their children of compulsory school age. I will come back later to that word "necessary".
The duty to which I have just referred does not apply if a school is not within walking distance unless suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for the pupils' transport to and from the appropriate school. The walking distance referred to was set in 1870 as three miles. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will recall that 1870 was the time of the Franco-Prussian war, when railways were comparatively new, the internal combustion engine had not been developed and the attitude to walking was very different from the attitude to walking now.
The walking distance of three miles was confirmed in the 1944 Act and, as well as confirming that distance for children over 8 years of age, it set a new walking distance of two miles for children below the age of 8. However, in 1973 the Department of Education and Science report on school transport acknowledged that there had been a change in people's habits with the extension of ownership of the motorcar and public transport. Thus, it pointed out that in normal life children aged 8 or less simply do not walk two miles these days, and are not expected to do so. Similarly, older children are not expected to walk and do not walk regularly three miles or more two or four times a day, as they would have to if they went to and from a school and home for their lunch.
This situation had already been recognised in the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953, section 12, which empowers local education authorities to fill any vacant seats in transport provided for the eligible children with ineligible pupils, charging a "reasonable" fare. So that Act accepted that it was not reasonable to expect all children to walk 2·8 or 2·9 miles, and that if there were places available on buses they should be given to the ineligible children at a reasonable rate.
No mention has been made so far of safety, and as motor traffic has increased in volume sixfold since 1944, safety is obviously an important factor. In 1954, in Shaxted v. Ward, it was ruled that distance, not danger, was the overriding factor in determining statutory requirements for free transport. That a way of saying that the shortest distance, regardless of whether it was safe or unsafe in the eyes of the parents, the children or the authority, had to be measures and that if that turned out to be less than three miles, free transport would not be


provided. It did not say whether safety should be taken into account in considering the word "necessary", to which I referred, when it was said that transport should be provided if the education authority thought it necessary.
I submit that safety is a factor that should be taken into account in determining the word "necessary" in any situation. In 1965, the then Minister, in a circular letter, urged local education authorities to use their discretion more often with regard to dangerous routes. It would appear that the Minister was mindful of the safety aspect in relation to the 1944 Act in considering what was "necessary."
I will illustrate the effect that the law has on the lives and safety of children in Hullbridge, in my constituency, who travel to Park school in Rayleigh, and I submit that in this case transport is necessary. Hullbridge is a community of about 7,000 people. A school was built to serve that community in 1975, but it was sited by Essex education authority 2·8 miles from the centre of Hullbridge in the town of Rayleigh, which already had two large secondary schools.
It was unfortunate, in my view and that of the people of Hullbridge, that the school was sited in a town which was 2·8 miles distant. Essex county council probably recognised that, and, as a sweetener to Hullbridge parents, decided to provide concessionary transport for all the children from Hullbridge to Park school.
Today, the school roll at Park school is 1,160, of whom 299 come from beyond Hullbridge and pass through Hullbridge on their way to Park school; 600 come from Hullbridge itself, and of that 600, only 10 are entitled to statutory free transport to go from that school and from that town to the school in Rayleigh; and 590, and the 600 from Hullbridge, have concessionary transport.
Essex county council has, however, notified parents of children in Hullbridge that that concessionary transport will be withdrawn after this Easter holiday. That means that after Easter, 590 pupils who have in the past travelled by coach and bus will have to find their own way to Park school in Rayleigh.
The route from Hullbridge to Rayleigh is, as I said, 2·8 miles long, and it is dangerous. Pupils will have to cross three busy roads, one of which is designated the main link road between Hullbridge and Chelmsford, and they will have to negotiate a junction with a traffic volume between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning of over 1,000 vehicles per hour, which is one vehicle every four seconds, making it difficult for them to find a gap in the vehicles to cross the road. They will have to walk the majority of the way along the footpaths which are immediately adjacent to the main roads, with no hedge, kerb or fence to act as a barrier. The traffice is busy, heavy and fast-moving.
I was a witness on two days when the pupils boycotted the buses and walked along that road to demonstrate what it would be like after Easter when the coaches were withdrawn. What I saw was disturbing. About 590 children crowded onto a narrow footpath, part of which was built especially to accommodate them when the coaches were withdrawn. In the four or five monthe during which that footpath has been in existence it has witnessed four accidents. On one occasion a car careered across the road, on two occasions lamp standards on the footpath have been knocked down, and on another a fence behind the footpath was knocked down. Fortunately, on all four

occasions no children were walking to school and nobody was injured. But after Easter that footpath will have up to 590 children on it twice, possibly four times, a day.
I saw the children walking in the road because the footpath was not wide enough. I saw normal boisterous horseplay. There was nothing wrong with that, but when children pushed and shoved and finished up in the road it was dangerous. I saw lorries swerving to miss the children. On one occasion two young girls took a short cut through lanes and woodland that were unlit and dangerous and a possible haunt for molesters. Some children arrived by car, but the congestion at Park school, which is built on the brow of a hill with double white lines on the road and zero visibility over the hill, was such that the police would not allow parents to stop in case they caused an accident.
As a consequence of that trial or demonstration—call it what one will—traffic lights will now be erected at the major junction; some roads in Rayleigh, 2·8 miles away from Hullbridge, will be turned into one-way streets to try to reduce the congestion at the particular junction; and the police are still considering how to deal with the extra road traffic that is bound to result from the children either walking, cycling or being taken to and from school. As the police will not allow parents to stop outside the school to drop the children off and as they will not allow the cars to go into the school in case there is a tail-back on to the dangerous main road, there is still a problem of how parents who wish to take their children to school by car will be able to get them out of the car and into the school.
All this that I have described is to try to provide some measure of protection to the children and other road users. The traffic lights, the one-way system and the police attempts to sort out the traffic chaos are the consequence of the withdrawal of concessionary transport to 590 children who will have to walk 2·8 miles.
I make it abundantly clear that I know that Essex county council is acting within the law. But it is not taking the advice contained in the 1965 letter from the Minister asking it to use discretion more often with regard to dangerous routes. Nor is Essex county council following the spirit of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science dated 15 December 1981 when he expressed the view that local education authorities should think it right not to disturb well-established arrangements for transport, some of which have been associated with a local agreement or understanding about the siting of schools.
Admittedly the Secretary of State was talking about voluntary schools where there is parental choice, but how much more important it is to retain local agreements on transport to state schools in a catchment area with little or no choice. Indeed, if choice were exercised at all in that particular case it would involve children travelling more than three miles in any case. The arrangements that are now being withdrawn were certainly well-established. They have been established for nine years from 1975 to 1984.
I know that the Secretary of State would not normally intervene in matters which legitimately fall in the local authority's jurisdiction. However, the safety hazard here is of such severity, the number of children on a single road so large, and the need for transport so inescapable, that the withdrawal of transport is unreasonable in the strict legal


sense. I think, therefore, that the authority should think again about the word "necessary" and should consider that transport is necessary in this case.
In conclusion, I should like to draw attention to two other points. They are important points, even though I have only a little time to devote to them.
In 1973 the working party of the Department of Education and Science, in addition to its unease about the danger, pointed to the abrupt cut-off of free transport at three miles and the provision of consessionary transport after a school closure.
On the latter point, I fear that if Sutton school near Rochford is closed consessionary transport may be offered in order to pacify the parents, and withdrawn by Essex county council at a later date because the children are travelling less than two miles. The distance will be 1·8 miles.
School closures create a need for school transport. If some of the village schools were kept open, there would be no need for transport. Many of the teachers in those schools are excellent, and the schools are worthy of being kept open.
On the point about the abrupt cut-off, there are many examples of children who live next door to each other being treated differently because one is within the three-mile limit and the other outside it. The children may use the same bus-stop to get to school, one paying and the other travelling free. This is the situation in Lodge road, Bicknacre, with children travelling to South Woodham Ferrers. Until recently they all travelled four miles to Wickford, but with educational progress a new school has been built at South Woodham Ferrers. Some children travel free to that school and others, living 2·99 miles away, have to pay. Progress in this case is expensive for the parents and the 10 yards that separates two houses may be a very expensive 10 yards.
The current situation on the provision of school transport is not satisfactory. I would agree with the resolution adopted by Essex county council in 1982:
That this Council requests the Association of County Councils to seek amendment to the 1944 Education Act so that, in future assessments for school transport provision, personal risk, traffic and road safety criteria must be taken fully into account and that present distance requirements from home to school be reviewed as a matter of urgency.
I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise these points. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and hope that he will explain his thinking on school transport, particularly with regard to the safety of children.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I shall begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on his success in obtaining this debate. His remarks suggest that he has done some outstanding historical research, and I know that his constituents will approve of his efforts in bringing a number of points to my attention tonight.
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech on the problems faced by his constituents in relation to school transport. He has made his points clearly and I will attempt to answer him in the same way. I will do so by setting out the law on school transport as it stands at present, refer to our attempt to change it and then deal with the particular problems he has raised.
The main provision governing home to school transport is section 55 of the Education Act 1944. Under section 55(1) local education authorities are under a duty to make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the purpose of facilitating the attendance of pupils at schools. Any arrangements made under this subsection must be free of charge to the parents.
What is necessary for the purpose of section 55(1) is not defined, but it is quite common for authorities, when deciding what arrangements to make, to take into account the law relating to school attendance which is set out in section 39 of the 1944 Act. Under that section, parents have a duty to secure the attendance of their children of compulsory school age. However, the duty does not apply if, among other things, the school at which the child is registered is not within walking distance of the child's home and no suitable arrangements have been made by the local authority for his transport to and from school. Walking distance is defined in the Act as two miles for a pupil under 8 years of age and three miles for an older pupil measured by the nearest available route.
Section 55(2) is also relevant. Under this provision, local education authorities have the power to pay the whole or part of the fares of a pupil for whom they have made no arrangements to provide free transport under section 55(1). Where transport is provided under section 55(1), authorities may also make a charge for pupils who, although ineligible for free transport, occupy spare seats on vehicles provided to carry pupils who are eligible. I understand that Essex makes use of this "spare seats" provision and charges parents £20 per term. That compares with an average cost to the authority of £60 per term.
My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that LEAs have considerable freedom, within the law, to deal with school transport. In forming their judgment on what is "necessary", to use the key word in section 55(1), they can take account of many factors, such as distance between home and school, the age and health of a pupil, the availability of other means of transport, the availability of other appropriate schools and safety. The extent to which LEAs have this freedom is shown by the fact that Essex adopts a qualifying distance for free transport of 1·5 miles for pupils under 8 years of age as compared with the two miles referred to in section 39.
I shall elaborate on the issue of safety in view of my hon. Friend's concern— a concern with which I have every sympathy. I understand the natural fears of his constituents. Whilst safety is a factor to which LEAs may address themselves under section 55(1), they are under no compulsion to do so and it does not arise under section 39. As my hon. Friend has already said, in 1954, the courts considered this point in a school attendance case — Shaxted v. Ward—in which the parent claimed that the "nearest available route", which the authority stated his child could walk and which was within the statutory walking distance under section 39, was not "available" because it was unsafe. The parent argued that the alternative route was over the walking distance and that this entitled him to free school transport. The court found against the parent on the grounds that the test to be used in determining the "nearest available route"—the words used in section 39 — was solely one of distance, not safety. I stress that this does not mean that LEAs cannot take safety into account but rather that it is a matter for


their judgment and discretion, under section 55. That illustrates the unsatisfactory and confusing nature of the present law.
I shall now consider our attempts to change the law. My hon. Friend should know that we remain dissatisfied with the present law on school transport. Hon. Members will recall that, as part of our proposals for what became the Education Act 1980, we tried to change the law to provide what, in our view, would have been a fairer system. Under our proposals at that time local authorities would have been able to arrange school transport and charge for it at a flat rate while offering it free when there was financial hardship. That would, we believe, have produced a more just system and allowed LEAs to secure useful savings and given them room to introduce some flexibility in providing free or subsidised fares on public transport. However, those proposals were defeated in another place. Although there is continuing criticism of the current provisions, it remains the case that there is no agreement on the basis for change. We continue, however, to watch the situation closely.
I turn to the issues which my hon. Friend has raised concerning his constituency of Rochford. I appreciate the problems which my hon. Friend has referred to in connection with pupils travelling between Hullbridge and Park school. We have already corresponded on this problem and my hon. Friend has recently forwrded a complaint from some of his constituents under section 68 of the Education Act 1944 alleging that the authority has acted unreasonably. We are investigating that complaint

and I shall write to my hon. Friend when a decision has been taken. I cannot therefore comment at this stage, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the case will be considered most carefully and that I shall take account of the points which he has made tonight.
I am already aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the Essex authority's proposals to cease to maintain Sutton county primary school. There are transport implications here which he has drawn to my attention. I cannot, of course, comment on the proposals or the points made tonight by my hon. Friend because I can say nothing which might be interpreted as prejudicing my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role when considering statutory proposals. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend that full accout will be taken of all that he has said before the decision is taken.
I hope that in the short time available to me I have been able to answer the points or some of the points, raised tonight by my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the particular points he has raised on specific matters affecting his constituents will be fully taken into account at the appropriate times. More generally, I will note the dissatisfaction which exists on school transport and the current law. I cannot—as I have already indicated—offer any early prospect of making another attempt to bring proposals before the House.
I should like to finish by again thanking my hon. Friend for bringing these matters to my attention and to that of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.